ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked

Broadband

Katy Clark: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of broadband coverage in Scotland.

Brian H Donohoe: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of broadband coverage in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: Scotland and the UK are ahead of most of Europe on broadband availability. However, we recognise that some people still have problems accessing broadband, and that is being addressed through the "Digital Britain" White Paper.

Katy Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Is he aware of the particular difficulties in rural areas? I carried out a survey in my constituency recently, and on average 11 per cent. of those who responded said that they had difficulty receiving broadband. In Millport, the figure was 30 per cent. What can the Government do to intervene and ensure that the problem is addressed quickly?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend has raised these issues regularly and campaigned on them, and she is right to draw out the point about people who are locked out of digital broadband for reasons of geography or income-whether in Millport, which I regularly enjoy visiting, or anywhere else throughout Scotland. We are determined that at least 90 per cent. of the country should have access to super-fast broadband, and I am happy to have more discussions with my hon. Friend about how we can ensure that that target is hit in her constituency.

Brian H Donohoe: Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that Ofcom is perceived as a toothless tiger that requires more powers? I have campaigned on this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark). In a letter I received from Ofcom, the regulator states:
	"Ofcom does not have the power to mandate ISPs"-
	internet service providers. Surely that power is overdue, because otherwise, many of my constituents, along with those of my colleagues, will continue to receive a poor broadband service.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend makes some very important points about the decision-making powers and architecture that will ensure we achieve 90 per cent. broadband penetration. We are trying to ensure that the market provides most of that, and we expect that up to two thirds-60 to 70 per cent.-of homes will be able to access super-fast broadband through the market. However, the Government will have to do additional things, and my hon. Friend can make the case for giving Ofcom additional powers; but, again, we are absolutely determined that no one be excluded for reasons of geography or income.

Malcolm Bruce: Is the Secretary of State aware of  The Press and Journal report today that, according to the Top 10 Broadband website, broadband speeds in Aberdeen and Inverness are running at about half the rate of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and that BT does not know why? Will he undertake to find out why, and recognise that high-tech global industries operate out of Aberdeen and need to have the same access as the best in the UK?

Jim Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman, also, makes a really important point, and the issue of access to broadband for business and domestic users is crucial. The figures that I have show, however, that despite that worrying report in the newspaper, Aberdeen is ahead of most Scottish cities. The fact is that less than half of people in Dundee and Edinburgh have access to super-fast broadband, and less than one third have access in Glasgow. Aberdeen is in a much stronger position, but we are determined to ensure that there is universal access in Aberdeen and beyond.

Angus MacNeil: What can the Government do to help or compel BT to upgrade exchanges, especially in rural areas, to ensure greater broadband penetration for the islands of Scotland in particular?

Jim Murphy: I recently had the opportunity to visit the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, and the people there raised those issues with me. It is important that there be an upgrade for copper and wire networks, but the Government are also committed to a 50 per cent. levy on those with BT lines- [ Interruption. ] I mean a 50p levy.  [ Interruption. ] That is the tax at some point in the future. There will be a 50p levy on those throughout the United Kingdom with a BT fixed line, and rural areas and island communities will benefit from that.

Jimmy Hood: I wish to take the positive message from the Secretary of State today. I had an open meeting in Lanark last week with voluntary organisations and small businesses in my constituency, particularly those in the Clyde valley, so his statement today will be good news, but we should roll out the programme as quickly as we can.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend makes the point that, for many people throughout Scotland and the UK, access to super-fast broadband is about a way of life. A decade or so ago, such infrastructure and technology was a luxury; today, it is increasingly a necessity. It is crucial that no one, for reasons of geography or income, be locked out of those changes.

People Trafficking

Peter Bone: What recent assessment he has made of the extent to which people are trafficked between Scotland and England.

Ann McKechin: The Secretary of State has made no recent assessment of people trafficking between Scotland and England.

Peter Bone: That is rather disappointing. The Barnardo's report, published last week, highlights the number of young people who are trafficked within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation. Will the Minister urge a further review, so that more can be done to protect those vulnerable people?

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman rightly raises a subject of great concern across the United Kingdom. I can assure him that there is close co-operation between all the police forces, including those in Scotland; of course, this is a devolved function of the Scottish Government. There is a national referral mechanism that is tracking child trafficking. Glasgow is one of the 13 pilot areas that have been taking part in that project, and we will have further information on its success later next year. The Government give the highest priority to tackling this invidious crime and to ensuring that we arrest the perpetrators as soon as we possibly can.

Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware of the TARA-trafficking awareness-raising alliance-project in Glasgow, which so far this year has taken 44 women trafficked for prostitution into care and is looking after them with the support of the Government and the Scottish Administration? Will she ask the police forces of Scotland to act on the Bill passed just two weeks ago, which makes it a crime to demand, ask for or seek to pay for sex with any woman who has been trafficked or coerced? In other words, it is now the male punters who are responsible, and they must be brought before the courts and named and shamed to slow down this disgraceful traffic.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend rightly refers to the very good work carried out by the TARA project over several years. The law on prostitution is different in Scotland, but that does not mean that colleagues in Scotland are not deeply concerned about the issues surrounding prostitution, particularly trafficking. I can assure him that local authorities and the police in Scotland are working very hard on that matter.

Jo Swinson: TARA in Scotland has seen a dramatic rise in the number of sex-trafficked women seeking its help. Sadly, the experience of large sporting events shows that the 2014 Commonwealth games could bring many more. Will the Minister ensure that her Government work closely with the Holyrood Government to share the experiences of and lessons from tackling this problem at the Olympics, to ensure that we minimise this horrible crime during the Commonwealth games?

Ann McKechin: The hon. Lady raises a genuine issue of concern which I share. There is already close co-operation between those organising the Commonwealth games to be held in Glasgow and the Olympic games to be held in London, and I am sure that the lessons learned about how we tackle this problem will be followed by colleagues in Scotland.

Nuclear Waste

David Taylor: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister and Ministry of Defence officials on the storage of nuclear waste from the decommissioned nuclear submarines moored at Rosyth; and if he will make a statement.

Ann McKechin: Our Office is in frequent contact with the Ministry of Defence, and the MOD is in regular contact with Scottish Government officials regarding this issue. No decisions on siting have yet been taken either for submarine dismantling or for waste storage.

David Taylor: The hazardous life of some forms of plutonium exceeds a quarter of a million years, so thousands of generations of people in Ayrshire, Fife and Caithness may have to live with the presence of a toxic nuclear dump on their doorstep. Do these intolerable risks not show that the Trident programme should be abandoned, not salami-sliced, and the £100 billion saved invested in more socially useful projects in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Ann McKechin: I can assure my hon. Friend that the MOD is committed to a safe, secure and cost-effective solution regarding dismantling submarines. The radiological risk to the general public is assessed as extremely low and it will remain so-but we are committed to ensuring that there is a full public consultation at national level with all areas that may be identified as potential sites.

Willie Rennie: The patience of people in West Fife is wearing thin, because we have had these submarines for 25 years and we lost the Trident refuelling contract in the '90s. We want rid of these submarines, and we want rid of them now. Will the Minister tell the Defence Secretary that when she next meets him?

Ann McKechin: I think it important to say to the hon. Gentleman that we must take care to have a full assessment of and full consultation on the various options for dismantling and storage. We are committed to carrying this out during 2010, and the MOD will take notice of any concerns raised by local communities.

Ben Wallace: In advance of the Scottish National party's publication of its independence White Paper next week, we should acknowledge the contribution to the Scottish economy made by the British submarine base at Faslane. Does the Minister agree that an independent Scotland would have a minimal defence capability and that the 3,000 jobs linked to that base would be put immediately at risk?

Ann McKechin: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have heard the recent comments of Mr. Jim Sillars regarding current SNP defence policy. It is clear that the cost of independence to Scotland in jobs would be extremely high, and that many skills would be lost as a result.

Employment

Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employment in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about employment in Scotland and will be co-hosting Scotland's first ever jobs summit on 11 January in Easterhouse in Glasgow.

Andrew Robathan: What proportion of those in employment in Scotland are paid out of the public purse, either through local, devolved or national Government? Are there any implications in that for a vibrant and dynamic Scottish economy?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is of course welcome to attend the jobs summit in Easterhouse in Glasgow. I am sure he would be like a fish in water there.
	The Scottish and UK Governments employ a substantial number of the work force in Scotland, who do a remarkable job, particularly at a time of recession, when they provide support to those who are vulnerable. I pay particular tribute to the staff of Jobcentre Plus, who at a very difficult time are providing real support to those who need it during the recession.

Michael Connarty: When my right hon. Friend speaks to his ministerial colleagues, will he ask them whether they will apply to the European Union globalisation fund, which is now being provided just to respond to the current economic downturn? For example, Ireland has just had £36 million, and it is about to move 500 jobs at Bausch and Lomb from West Lothian to Waterford in Ireland. Surely when we are losing jobs, we can also apply to that fund for money for Scotland to support employment there in the face of the economic recession.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We really must have questions that are questions rather than the pursuit of Adjournment debates.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend raises some big issues. Of course it is essential that we do all we can to support people through this recession, and our tax system remains internationally competitive. Although we can learn individual lessons from other countries, I do not think the UK or Scotland would be well suited to following exactly the economic model of Ireland-or Iceland.

Anne McGuire: My right hon. Friend might be aware that Prudential has regrettably announced this week 60 job losses at its site in Stirling. However, Capita and Prudential still contribute approximately 2,500 private sector financial jobs to the Stirling area. In his discussions at Scottish, UK and international level, will he highlight the fact that the city of Stirling has a lot to offer the financial services industry, as we seek to re-establish credibility in that marketplace?

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House that amidst all the understandable talk about an impending recovery, the recession is just starting for many people who have perhaps lost their jobs over recent weeks, or for small businesses that continue to struggle. That is why we are determined to do more. I know she is a doughty fighter for the city of Stirling, and there is a huge amount to be optimistic about there, as there is across the whole of Scotland. Although of course Scotland faces real difficulties at the moment, I remain entirely optimistic that we will get through this recession strongly.

Alistair Carmichael: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent Fraser of Allander Institute report that estimates that over the course of this year there will be 130,000 net job losses in Scotland, and which warns that the Scottish economy may not even come out of recession in the final quarter of this year? In those circumstances, does he believe that his colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was right to describe last month's job figures as "welcome news"?

Jim Murphy: It is always welcome news when people get back into work, and that is the point my colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has made. As people in Scotland and across the UK look towards Christmas and are increasingly concerned about how they will pay their bills or afford a good Christmas for their family, it is essential that we continue to do everything we can, aside from party politics, to get those folk back into work. That is what the Labour Government are determined to do.

Alistair Carmichael: Complacency is bad enough from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; from the Secretary of State for Scotland it is unforgivable. That same report points to the role of the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS in bringing Scotland's economy out of recession and states that as taxpayer-funded banks, they have to be prepared to lend more to small and medium-sized enterprises. What is the Secretary of State's Department doing to ensure that the taxpayer, having paid the piper, is now going to get to call the tune?

Jim Murphy: I suspect that that supplementary question sounded better in front of the mirror this morning than it did in the Chamber.
	We are doing everything we possibly can to get Scotland and the United Kingdom through this global recession. We want to ensure that the newly unemployed do not become the long-term unemployed, which is why the new investment in Jobcentre Plus, the support for the long-term unemployed and the targeted measures in the parts of Scotland that are suffering most are the right things to do.

David Mundell: May I be the first to congratulate the Secretary of State on being named best Scot at Westminster? I am sure the Prime Minister is delighted.
	Month after month, Scottish unemployment rises; month after month, the Scotland Office issues a statement distancing the Government from responsibility, invoking global factors; and month after month, that looks less credible. If the Government's economic policies have been right for Scotland, can the Secretary of State explain to us why the US, France and Germany have all returned to growth, but over the same period Scottish gross domestic product has continued to fall? Given that unemployment lags behind growth, are we to assume that Scotland will suffer further from Labour's legacy of rising unemployment for many months to come?

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his best wishes on my award. It was a very long shortlist, but I noticed he was not on it. I would nevertheless like to welcome the newest Member to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain).
	On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, there are a quarter of a million more people in work in Scotland today than when his party left power, but we are determined to do an awful lot more. The worst thing we could do is follow the prognosis of Conservative economics in the midst of this recession.

David Mundell: The Secretary of State's monologues about history are almost as predictable as those press releases on unemployment from the Scotland Office. We want to talk about the present. There are 270,000 people in Scotland on incapacity benefit under this Government. That cannot be justified-when will he take steps to get these people re-tested? All those found to be either ready to work or ready to prepare for work should be given support by specialist organisations; instead, they are ignored by his Government. When will he put that right?

Jim Murphy: We introduced the Welfare Reform Act 2007, which ensures that we provide new support to those on incapacity benefit, particularly those who experience fluctuating mental health conditions, and especially women in their 30s and 40s, in respect of whom there is an additional trend that is worrying for us all.
	However, it is nauseating to listen to the hon. Gentleman lecture us on incapacity benefit. We are doing everything we can to support those people in getting off that benefit. The fact is that when his Government were in power, they manufactured the unemployment figures by deliberately taking people off unemployment and sticking them on to a life of dependency on incapacity benefit, for which they will never be forgiven.

Future Jobs Fund

Sandra Osborne: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the operation of the future jobs fund in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: Future jobs fund vacancies are available in every local authority area in Scotland. To date, 44 bids have been approved in Scotland, offering almost 7,000 jobs.

Sandra Osborne: Between them, North Ayrshire and East Ayrshire councils have secured more than 500 jobs for young people over the next 18 months through the future jobs fund. The Tory-nationalist coalition in South Ayrshire council, on the other hand, has secured none at all. What can the Secretary of State do to put the maximum pressure on councils such as South Ayrshire to allow young people to participate?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend raises a really important point, because we need to support young people who have recently lost their jobs so that they do not spend six months or a year out of work. It would be unforgivable if local authorities did not provide that degree of support, so I will find ways to raise her concerns with South Ayrshire council. However, it is important that we provide that support for the long-term young unemployed and those who are middle-aged in particular problem areas across Scotland.

Robert Key: Given the Secretary of State's recent decision to reject the QinetiQ proposals for upgrading the Ministry of Defence ranges on Benbecula, is he confident that there will be no job losses on the Hebrides ranges for the next three years?  [ Interruption. ] If he cannot be confident of that, will he ensure that the future jobs fund will be applied to the islanders of North Uist, Benbecula and South Uist?  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just before the Secretary of State answers that question, may I reiterate the appeal that I make every week for a decline in the number of private conversations? I say this to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns): every week he indulges in these conversations, every week it is very tedious and every week it is not necessary. Let us have an end to it.

Jim Murphy: I am aware that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) does not have much interest in Scotland or Scottish questions, but the decision that was taken about saving the ranges on the Uists was very important. Again, it shows the benefit of Scotland being part of the United Kingdom. We remain committed to those firing ranges on the Uists, but we have to ensure that they attract new business and that we achieve diversity in the economy in the Western Isles, which is important to their future.

Tourism

Michael Weir: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the effect on the tourism industry in Scotland of proposed changes to the furnished holiday lettings rules.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend has discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues.

Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware that many groups, including the Association of Scotland's Self-Caterers and the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland, have raised concern about the impact of the proposed abolition of furnished holiday letting relief. Alternative solutions have been proposed that would be tax-neutral and support the industry. Will she urge the Treasury to look again at this matter to avoid serious damage to the economy in many areas of rural Scotland, including mine?

Ann McKechin: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the current rules were understood not to comply with EU law, nor were they fair to other residential landlords. It is also likely that if we had kept the rules as they stood, it would have had a negative impact on tourism, both in Scotland and the UK. There are only 60,000 individuals in the UK claiming this benefit, but there were 15 million overnight tourist visits in Scotland last year, so we consider that the change will not have any major impact on tourism.

Jim Sheridan: The biggest barrier to tourists visiting holiday homes in Scotland is the lack of a proper transport infrastructure. Will my hon. Friend join the Scottish trade unions and business leaders in calling on the SNP Administration at Holyrood to reverse the decision to cancel the Glasgow airport rail link?

Ann McKechin: As my hon. Friend might suspect, there is only one Glasgow MP who does not support the rail link to the airport, the creation of 1,300 jobs or the ambitions of the city for the future. I deeply regret the decision and I hope that it will now be reconsidered.

Economic Inactivity

John Howell: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the level of economic inactivity in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the level of economic inactivity in Scotland.

John Howell: Office for National Statistics figures show that the number of people in Scotland becoming economically inactive rose by 20 per cent. more than the UK average. Why is Scotland so much worse?

Jim Murphy: Scotland is better off because it is part of the United Kingdom. The four nations of the UK are stronger together during this recession than would otherwise be the case, and most people in Scotland now accept that. There are 250,000 more people in work in Scotland than when the hon. Gentleman's party left power, and his party has not been listened to on this recession in Scotland because of how it behaved while in government during the last recession in Scotland.

Rosemary McKenna: Does my right hon. Friend share my anger at the Opposition for refusing to vote for any support that we give to the unemployed in Scotland, and for the abandonment of people in the 1980s and 1990s that this Government reversed in 1997?

Jim Murphy: It is clear that the Labour Government are doing everything that we can to get people through this recession. It is also clear that we cannot stop every job being lost-that is the unavoidable and harsh reality of the world economy these days-but we can do everything possible to get people back into work so that they never suffer from long-term unemployment. That is why the measures we have taken are so important, and the blocking of those measures by the Opposition has been so unforgivable.

Rail Services (Economic Impact)

John Mason: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the effect on the Glasgow and Lanarkshire economy of future provision of rail services to the west of Scotland operated by East Coast.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues on a wide range of issues.

John Mason: Does the Minister agree that the airport rail link, while desirable, is a luxury at present, but the East Coast link is essential to Glasgow's economy?

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman might wish to follow the example of the newest Member of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain), in agreeing with the business community in Scotland that the Glasgow airport rail link project is not only desirable but affordable and will create 1,300 jobs. The hon. Gentleman seems to have no interest in that whatsoever.

Devolution

Lindsay Roy: What discussions he intends to have with ministerial colleagues on the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution.

Jim Murphy: I have had many discussions with Cabinet colleagues during preparation for the Government's proposals for the future of Scotland within the United Kingdom, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on that this afternoon.

Lindsay Roy: My right hon. Friend is about to make a statement to the House and I do not wish to steal his thunder, so I merely ask whether the commission's report is the outcome of diverse national conversations.

Jim Murphy: The commission's report is the work of months of research and evidence and is based on the support of the Scottish Parliament. The process is supported by the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats. Only one party stands outside the consensus, and unfortunately the Scottish National party Government continue to boycott the entire process.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Roberta Blackman-Woods: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 November.

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements this week, I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Sergeant Robert Loughran-Dickson from the 4th Regiment Royal Military Police who has died in Afghanistan. The debt of gratitude that we owe to him is permanent, and we send our sincere condolences to his family and friends. He, and the sacrifice he has made, will not be forgotten.
	All of us will also want to pay tribute to Police Constable Bill Barker, who tragically died in Cumbria in the course of duty, serving the community to which he was so committed. We remember those individuals who lost their lives during the recent floods. Our thoughts are with their families and friends, and all those affected by the serious flooding. They will have our support now and into the future. Let us as a House also pay tribute to the emergency services, armed forces and all organisations doing an outstanding job working round the clock to help those areas of our country affected by the floods.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: May I begin by associating myself with the Prime Minister's comments about the death of Sergeant Loughran-Dickson in Afghanistan?
	As the Prime Minister said, in the past week we have witnessed appalling flooding in Cumbria and near-misses in many other places, including in my constituency. We know that the emergency services are providing excellent support now, but will he reassure the House that help will be available for as long as needed to get people back on their feet and to help prevent flooding in the future?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken an interest in such matters over many years. The floods were the worst that we have seen. It was a terrible time, as I found out, and as many others in the House also found out when they visited the area. I pay tribute to the local MP who has done so much to comfort and help people.
	It might be helpful if I update the House on what is happening and assure people that our support will continue right throughout the troubles facing the area. Some 39 bridges remain closed. We are examining the possibility of a temporary bridge and temporary station, and this morning, a team of military engineers is assessing the possibility of a temporary pedestrian bridge across the River Derwent. The Department for Transport will fund bridge and road repairs. I believe that 40 people are still in rest centres. Consultations with the insurance industry are taking place to ensure that people can return to their homes or have, as a result of action by the council, alternative accommodation. The Flood and Water Management Bill, which deals with some of those issues in the longer term, will come before the House before Christmas. Let me praise all the emergency services that have done so much to help people in this time of need.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Sergeant Robert Loughran-Dickson, who was killed in Afghanistan last week? As the Prime Minister said, our thoughts should be with his family. I also join him in paying tribute to PC Bill Barker, who died in the line of duty protecting the lives of others from those dreadful floods in Cumbria. As the Prime Minister also said, PC Bill Barker was part of an extraordinary effort by emergency services and voluntary groups such as Mountain Rescue, which worked day and night to keep people safe. As the Prime Minister and I have seen, the community spirit shown by residents in dealing with the floods is a real inspiration.
	As has been said, one of the biggest issues is the state of the bridges in Cumbria. Communities have been cut in half and trips to school that used to take five minutes now take an hour and a half. The Prime Minister spoke about what is being done on a national basis, including mobilising Army resources, and about plans for a temporary bridge. How quickly could that temporary bridge be put up to help families come together?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for all that he has said about the whole range of emergency services on which we depend. It is at times like these that we realise the importance of all the public and voluntary services that help our country. As I said, we are examining whether a temporary bridge could be put across the River Derwent. As he knows, we are also looking at how we can fund and finance the construction of a temporary rail station that will allow transport in the area. I believe from the information that I have had that that could be done fairly quickly, but we await the report of the military engineers who are working with the local authorities as we speak this morning. I hope that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be able to give further information this afternoon. Let me say absolutely that the costs of those repairs will be met by the Department for Transport.

David Cameron: People will be very grateful for that answer and that assurance about the funding. With Christmas coming, it will be incredibly hard on those families who cannot get back into their homes. Whether it is contacting the insurance companies so that they pay out quickly, contributing to the community fund, which is set up in cases of hardship, or contacting public and private landlords so that empty homes are made available, can the Prime Minister assure us that everything that can be done will be done to help those families in the run-up to Christmas?

Gordon Brown: The Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination met the Association of British Insurers yesterday. She received a full assurance that insurers would act quickly on all claims that were being made to them, particularly those claims that required the provision of emergency accommodation during a period when people are out of their homes. Obviously we hope that people will get back to their homes as quickly as possible.
	We know that the insurance industry will act for those people who have claims that allow the payment of money for temporary accommodation, but in those circumstances where the local authority has to act to provide accommodation for people, it will do so. The right hon. Gentleman will recall from being there yesterday that a large number of the people affected were very elderly people who live in accommodation for the elderly. We are determined to ensure that the provision of alternative accommodation is up and running and able to meet their needs as soon as possible. It is true that it takes time when houses are flooded for people to get back into them, but we are doing everything in our power to get people back into their homes as quickly as possible. I have also talked to the leader of the council, Councillor Jim Buchanan, who has satisfied himself that we are doing what we can.

David Cameron: I am very grateful for those answers, and people in Cumbria will be too.
	Let me turn to a completely different subject, one that I raised two years ago. I asked the Prime Minister about the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and why, despite an explicit promise by Tony Blair that it would be banned, it still has not been banned. Hizb ut-Tahrir's constitution states that non-Muslims are "combatants in the battlefield" and that their
	"blood is...lawful...as is their property".
	Although he has not been able to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, can the Prime Minister at least assure me that this extremist group has not received any public money?

Gordon Brown: I am not aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir receiving any public money. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, perhaps he will give it to me.

David Cameron: Well, I will not only give it to the Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend- [ Interruption. ] What is extraordinary is that my hon. Friend the shadow schools Secretary wrote to the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend the schools Secretary a week ago about the issue. Let me draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that two schools have been established by an extremist Islamist foundation, the ISF or Islamic Shaksiyah Foundation, which is a front organisation for Hizb ut-Tahrir. The ISF has secured a total of £113,000 of Government money, some of which was from the pathfinder scheme, whose objective is meant to be preventing violent extremism. Can the Prime Minister explain how that completely unacceptable situation came about?

Gordon Brown: I am happy to say that this will be looked into in every detail. I am told that the two schools that the right hon. Gentleman referred to have been inspected. I will look at the results of those inspections and write to him. We are dealing with grants of £113,000 of public money, as he said, and two schools that I do not know the names of, and I shall look at this matter very carefully.

David Cameron: I am grateful for that, but there can be no doubt that the organisation that I mentioned is a front organisation for Hizb ut-Tahrir. Two of its four trustees are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the head teacher and proprietor of one of the schools-a school in Slough-are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. I find it hard to understand why the Prime Minister does not know about that, given that we were asking- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Government Back Benchers are becoming far too excitable today. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard.

David Cameron: Given that the Opposition have been asking questions about this issue in Parliament for almost a month and that the shadow schools Secretary wrote to his opposite number a week ago, how can the Government have an anti-extremist fund that results in a Labour local authority handing out money to extremists? This is a school set up by extremists, passed by Ofsted and approved by the Charity Commission, but in receipt of public money. Does not that prove that we need a much bigger inquiry into how things like this can happen?

Gordon Brown: Let me say that everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said will be investigated in great detail. Let me also say that the letter written by the shadow schools Secretary a few days ago will be replied to. Let me also say-let us be clear about this-that the vast majority of Muslims in our country are part of the law-abiding majority of this country. I do not want it to be said that those people who are citizens of our country who hold the Muslim faith are to be held responsible for acts of terrorism. Where there is abuse, it will be investigated. In the case of Hizb ut-Tahrir, we have investigated and looked at it. It is not a proscribed organisation and if the right hon. Gentleman has new evidence that should make us proscribe it, we shall look at it again. As far as the two schools are concerned, they will be properly inspected and every argument the right hon. Gentleman has made will be looked at closely, but he would not expect me, without looking at the evidence, to draw early conclusions.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister talks about investigating Hizb ut-Tahrir. This is an organisation that said Jews should be killed "wherever you find them". That is what that organisation says. Let me ask the Prime Minister about another organisation because there is a sense that this Government have just not got a grip on the issue of Islamic extremism. Take the group Islam for the UK. The leader of this group, Anjum Chaudri, claims that the 9/11 bombers were "magnificent" people
	"carrying out their Islamic responsibility".
	The group has apparently called for
	"blood on the streets of London and New York".
	When the Prime Minister replies for the last time, perhaps he can tell us why this group has not been banned as well?
	Is it not the case that people will see that we have a Government who say they want to prevent extremism, yet their money is funding extremists; that we have a Government who say we should not have extremist-led schools, yet we have those schools? Above all, when is the Prime Minister going to tell us how he is going to get a grip on this issue?

Gordon Brown: To proscribe an organisation, we need full evidence and that evidence needs to be looked at in detail in the cold light of day, and I think the right hon. Gentleman may regret some of the remarks he has made this morning. As to our activities against terrorism in this country, we have doubled the security staff available to deal with terrorism; we have doubled the number of police who are dealing with potential terrorist incidents; we have put 100 people into prison since 2001 as a result of terrorist acts; we are monitoring very closely people who enter this country, including through the use of the identity card that foreign people coming to this country have to hold; and we are using the DNA database to check up on people, much against the advice of other parties. We are doing everything in our power to deal with the terrorist threat in this country and I thought it was a matter of all-party consensus that proscription should be on the basis of evidence, which was clearly proven, of advocating violence. That is the position that both parties accepted; that is the position that we will continue to follow.

Andrew Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments of the chief inspector of constabulary today that it is time to reassert the principles of the traditional British model of approachable, impartial and accountable policing based on minimum force for major public order events such as the G20?

Gordon Brown: I absolutely agree that it is important that policing is of the best. Where mistakes are made or where there are question marks, they have got to be answered. We have procedures for doing so. I know that the events at the G20 caused a great deal of anger and sadness for people when we had the casualty. It is very important that we take the action that reassures people that policing will always be fair.

Nicholas Clegg: I would obviously like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Sergeant Robert Loughran-Dickson of the Royal Military Police, who tragically died serving in Afghanistan last week. I also add my tribute to PC Bill Barker, who lost his life in the line of duty dealing with the terrible floods in Cumbria. Our hearts go out to his wife and four children. At such times we all remember that it is the brave men and women of our emergency services who keep us safe when it really counts. We thank them for it.
	It is vital that the Iraq inquiry, which started its work this week, is able to reveal the full truth about the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that when Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues come to publish their final report, they will able to publish all information available to them, with the sole exception of information essential to national security?

Gordon Brown: I have set out a remit and brought it to the House of Commons. Sir John Chilcot has been given the freedom to conduct his inquiry as he wants. He has chosen to invite people to give evidence, and he will choose how to bring his final report to the public. That is a matter for the inquiry.

Nicholas Clegg: As I think the Prime Minister must know, the matter is not just for the inquiry, because his Government have just issued a protocol-I have it here-to members of the inquiry, governing the publication of material in the final report. If he reads it, he will see that it includes nine separate reasons why information can be suppressed, most of which have nothing to do with national security. Outrageously, it gives Whitehall Departments individual rights of veto over the information in the final report. Why did the Prime Minister not tell us about that before? How on earth will we, and the whole country, hear the full truth of the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq if the inquiry is suffocated on day one by his Government's shameful culture of secrecy?

Gordon Brown: That is not what Sir John Chilcot has said. The issues affecting the inquiry that would cause people to be careful are national security and international relations. As I understand it, those are the issues referred to in the protocol. I believe that Sir John Chilcot and his team are happy with how they are being asked to conduct the inquiry.

Madeleine Moon: Britain's top bankers rewarded their own financial greed and incompetence with large bonuses, while imposing huge banking charges on those who, because of need not greed, often went into the red. I am sure that many Members were dismayed at today's Supreme Court judgment. What will the Government do to ensure fairness for ordinary people-ordinary customers-within the banking system?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the anxieties that people have had about the system of bank charges in our country. Although the court judgment has not upheld the case of the Office of Fair Trading, it is right that we examine how fairness can be applied in all cases to people who are banking customers in this country. As far as the banks that we are responsible for at this moment are concerned-Northern Rock, HBOS Lloyds and RBS-we have asked them to review their overdraft charges over the past few weeks in order to be fairer to their customers, and they have done so. Under the Financial Services Bill, which is now before the House, a damages fund will have to be set up by banks to deal with complaints by customers of overcharging. There is now the possibility for class actions to be taken in court, which could not happen before, so that a group of customers can take banks to court. There is now power given to the Financial Services Authority, for the first time, to impose settlements on banks to repay customers they have overcharged. The proposed legislation will strengthen the rights of customers, as we have sought to do over the past two years, so that they get a fairer deal from the banking system, as they should, in this country.

Patrick Cormack: When did the Prime Minister first realise that he was infallible?

Gordon Brown: I deal with the issues as they arise, and I do so as best I can. I believe that, over the recession, we have dealt with the issues in a far better way than we would have done had we followed the advice received from the hon. Gentleman's party.

Louise Ellman: How important is the work of the North-west Regional Development Agency in delivering investment to business, science to Daresbury, and the successful "capital of culture" year to Liverpool as part of the city's ongoing regeneration?

Gordon Brown: One of the biggest mistakes that could be made would be the abolition of the regional development agencies in our country. In every region of the country the business organisations, the small business organisations, the engineering employees and the local authorities say that the RDAs are doing a job that helps their businesses through a recession and creates new job opportunities for people. I think that the Conservative party would make a terrible mistake if they decided, in an act of vindictive ideology, to abolish development agencies.

Alan Reid: The Government have compiled a secret list of sites in Argyll and Bute where they are thinking of dumping nuclear waste from old submarines. There is widespread opposition to the proposal in Argyll and Bute, and many communities fear that they are on the secret list. Will the Government publish that list of secret sites today, so that a public debate can take place?

Gordon Brown: I have followed this issue over the 26 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, and it has been an issue for all those years. The question is where nuclear dismantling should happen, and where the nuclear waste from submarines should be placed in this country. It is right to consult MPs-as the hon. Gentleman has been consulted-and local representatives on the issue, and I understand that the Ministry of Defence is talking to MPs and elected representatives in the areas where there are potential sites. This is not happening behind closed doors. Members of Parliament are being asked for their views on these very matters.

Parmjit Dhanda: On the subject of tackling radicalisation, does the Prime Minister agree that in all such cases it is important that we listen to the Association of Chief Police Officers? If an organisation is proscribed, however much we may abhor its views-and we do-it will stay on the right side of the law, because such organisations are quite clever in that way. The danger is that proscription will merely create a recruiting sergeant, and possibly also lead to a judicial review. Should we not listen to ACPO before deciding whether to proscribe organisations of this kind, and should not the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) do likewise?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend brings a great deal of experience to the issue, and he is absolutely right. Any decisions about proscription should be made on the basis not of a few exchanges in the House of Commons but of a detailed assessment of what is right and what is wrong, and part of that involves taking police evidence into account. As my hon. Friend says, we must not get into a position in which the decisions that we make act as a recruiting sergeant for militants in this country. We are taking every action that we can to deal with the terrorist threat in this country, and I think that, on an all-party basis, we should be united in saying that we are doing what we can to ensure that the al-Qaeda threat- [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is saying something about money. We have doubled the amount of money being spent on security. That would not happen under a Conservative Government, because they would not be prepared to make the funds available. Why, when we are dealing with the issue of spending, do they persist in their policy on inheritance tax- [Interruption]-whose beneficiaries resemble the Leader of the Opposition's Christmas card list?

Paul Rowen: Unlock Democracy has proposed the establishment of a citizens' convention to consider a renewal of faith in the House and in Parliament. Is the Prime Minister willing to support that, and if a private Member presents a Bill to that effect following tomorrow's ballot, will he give it Government time?

Gordon Brown: I welcome the report from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) on the reform of this Parliament. It is right for us to consider how our Select Committee system can be reformed so that it is better in the future. It is also right for us to consider how non-Government business is dealt with, and how we can improve the workings of the House. I believe that there will be a warm welcome for some of the proposals in the report.As for the question of our House becoming more open to the views of people outside, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to suggest that we need to consult widely. The Youth Parliament met here only a few weeks ago, and we will continue to have an outreach to members of the community. That is essential in a modern-day participatory democracy.

Eric Martlew: I thank the Prime Minister for his words of comfort and encouragement to the people of Cumbria today, following last week's devastating floods. In 2005 my constituency was flooded, and the Government were very generous in providing resources for flood defences. It will cost £40 million just to rebuild the bridges in west Cumbria, and probably the same amount to rebuild the roads. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he and the Government will be able to help? The people of Cumbria cannot afford to pay that bill.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right-100 flood protection schemes have recently been brought in. One of them is for Carlisle, where £40 million is being spent to make sure there is proper protection against the floods that did so much damage the last time, and I understand that in the recent times about 3,000 properties were prevented from being flooded as a result of those new flood defence arrangements. We will look at what we have done. I have said already that the Environment Agency budget and the other budgets for dealing with flood defences will rise to £800 million in 2010-11. That is a sign of our commitment to making sure the whole country is best protected against flooding.

David Burrowes: Is the Prime Minister aware of his schools Secretary's pre-Budget statement to the annual Youth Justice convention two weeks ago protecting the youth justice budget for the next two years? If that is true, what cuts will be made to accommodate that cross-departmental commitment?

Gordon Brown: It is the hon. Gentleman's party that wants to cut massively public spending, and it wants to cut it this year and next year. In fact, it is the only major party in Europe that wants to withdraw the fiscal stimulus now when it is absolutely necessary to keep the economy moving forward. If I were him, I would be asking the Leader of the Opposition why his policy is so designed to cut money from policing, education and all the services that the public depend upon now.

Alan Whitehead: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his early decision to attend at Copenhagen, a lead that has now been followed by 60 Prime Ministers and Presidents from around the world? When he is in Copenhagen, will he seek to harness that high-level attendance to ensure that the best possible package of clean development funding is on the table in order to secure the sign-up of developing countries to a workable climate change agreement?

Gordon Brown: I praise my hon. Friend for the work he has done in promoting a climate change agreement, and the work of Members of all parties who want to see success at Copenhagen. I will go to the Commonwealth conference this week to try to build a consensus between richer countries such as Australia and ourselves and some of the poorest countries in the world on how we can finance climate change for developing countries as well as developed countries. If we are to get an agreement to cut emissions in some of the poorest countries in the world, it is absolutely essential that we get an agreement on finance. I hope all parties here will support the British proposal for $100 billion of funding for climate change in 2020 as a result of the contributions of the European Union, America and some of the other richest countries in the world. We will do everything in our power to secure a climate change agreement in Copenhagen.

John Baron: Whatever our individual positions on Afghanistan, it is very important that there is clarity regarding the mission. The Prime Minister has said we are in Afghanistan to protect British people against terrorism, yet, almost in the same breath, he threatens to pull out of the country if President Karzai cannot clean up his corrupt Government. These are contradictory messages that are sending out mixed signals. Can the Prime Minister now square that circle?

Gordon Brown: We are in the country because of the threat to Britain. It is a threat that has been seen over eight years as a result of projected and actual terrorist offences in our country, three quarters of which come from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and mainly the borders of Pakistan. That is why we are there-to protect the streets of Britain. I was right to ask President Karzai to give us assurances about how, in his second term, he would tackle corruption. He has now announced an anti-corruption taskforce. I gather that 12 people were arrested yesterday from within the core administration. At the same time, I have asked him to appoint district and regional governors who are free of corruption and who will deal with the problems in hand, as Governor Mangal is doing in Helmand province, and President Karzai has agreed to do so. By his speeches, President Karzai has met the tests I have set him, and we have now got to see them being met in the delivery. I believe that next week we will see the American Government and the rest of NATO coming together in a strategy that will mean that we have sufficient forces to create the space for a political solution in Afghanistan that will make our streets safer. It is as clear as that.

Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister will be aware of the warning from Sir Hugh Orde, the top cop's top cop, of the dangers of and widespread unease about the investments in police commissioners. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether this Labour Government will ever allow the police to be politicised, as the Conservatives propose?

Gordon Brown: The operational independence of chief police officers is and has been, and should continue to be, an important constitutional principle. It must be clear that chief officers-and chief officers alone-are responsible for running their force. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition should immediately withdraw his proposal, which would mean the politicisation of the police and which has been criticised by the chairman of Association of Chief Police Officers in the past few days.

Evan Harris: In March, when the Lord Chancellor talked out my private Member's Bill to end the discrimination against Catholics in royal marriages and against women in the line of succession, he said that the Government recognised that this discrimination should end. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is, as the Lord Chancellor said, ready to consult the relevant Commonwealth Heads of Government this week and that he is confident that we will then be able to sort this out, so that the all-party-

Mr. Speaker: Order. We get the drift. I call the Prime Minister.

Gordon Brown: The Act of Settlement is outdated, and I think that most people recognise the need for change. Change can be brought about only when all realms where Her Majesty is Queen make a decision to change, not just by the United Kingdom. That is why it is important to discuss this with all members of the Commonwealth, including countries such as Australia and Canada. That is the process that will be undertaken in due course.

Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing evidence, including in the recent report "Northampton Families and the Recession", to show that as a result of the recession, women are doing more of the breadwinning and men are doing more of the caring? What further measures will his Government take to support the flexible working arrangements needed for today's working families?

Gordon Brown: There are about 500,000 more families receiving working tax or child tax credit as a result of the help we are giving in a recession. People in this country have to make a choice: do we want to help families and help children through these difficult times or do we want to cut inheritance tax for the wealthiest people in this country? I think I know what choice the people of this country are going to make.

Indemnity to Bank of England

Alistair Darling: Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a short statement on the emergency liquidity assistance provided by the Bank of England to the banking system.
	One of the functions of central banks is to provide emergency liquidity to banks when it is necessary to do so. Lender of last resort facilities have been a feature of the banking system for many years, because there will be times when an individual bank or, as we saw last year, several banks find it difficult or impossible to raise the funds they need from the market. It is therefore essential that the Bank of England has the power to lend to individual banks facing such temporary liquidity problems. It is important, too, that the Bank of England can do so effectively. Inevitably, on occasion, that means that the Bank has to be able to do so without disclosing its operations.
	Disclosure of individual operations could lead to a loss of confidence and exacerbate any short-term liquidity problems. That was exactly the problem we saw with Northern Rock in September 2007. It was a problem recognised by the House, and by the Treasury Committee in its report on Northern Rock-it recognised that some operations needed to be kept confidential.
	Early in 2008, we consulted on proposals to facilitate limited disclosure of the provision of emergency liquidity to ensure that such assistance could be made effective. Following that, the Banking Act 2009 provided an end to automatic disclosure of liquidity assistance by the Bank of England. This enabled the Bank to decide the most appropriate way in which to make disclosures to the market. The Financial Services Authority, too, has said there may be good reasons for delaying disclosure of emergency liquidity operations.
	Twelve months ago, we faced a situation in which the world banking system was on the brink of collapse. No one should underestimate the gravity of the situation that we then faced. Protecting retail depositors and maintaining financial stability was essential. That was why I said in my statement to the House on 6 October 2008 that the Governor had made it clear that
	"in these extraordinary market conditions, the Bank of England will take all actions necessary to ensure the banking system has access to sufficient liquidity".-[ Official Report, 6 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 21.]
	That was what we did. The Governor's decision to make emergency liquidity available was quite right and we supported it.
	Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee that the Bank had extended such emergency liquidity assistance to the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS in the autumn of 2008. He told the Committee that in most cases confidence can be best sustained if the Bank's support is disclosed only when the conditions have improved to a point where the disclosure itself should not be a cause for disturbance. However, he said that, as stated in his report, it is the policy of the Bank that such assistance should be disclosed once the Bank considers that the need for confidentiality has ceased.
	The Governor's judgment is that now that RBS has signed up for the asset protection scheme and Lloyds Banking Group has embarked on its alternative strategy for capital raising, there is no longer a need for the assistance to remain secret and it is now appropriate to disclose details. I agree with his judgment.
	As the Governor said, from 1 October 2008 the Bank provided liquidity to HBOS, and from 7 October to RBS. Use of the facilities peaked at £36.6 billion for RBS on 17 October and £25.4 billion for HBOS on 13 November. The total use of emergency liquidity assistance across both banks peaked at £61.6 billion on 17 October. At that point, the two banks concerned provided the Bank with collateral-including residential mortgages, Government debt and personal and commercial loans-totalling in excess of £100 billion. The banks were charged fees for the use of the facilities. The RBS facility was repaid in full by 16 December 2008, and the HBOS facility by 16 January 2009. There has been no cost to the taxpayer.
	By that time, the Government's recapitalisation of the banking system was in place. That, alongside other action such as the credit guarantee scheme, stabilised the banking system. Because of the scale of these liquidity operations by the Bank of England compared with the size of its balance sheet, I granted an indemnity in October 2008 to cover potential losses in respect of further lending. The indemnity was provided for actions taken by the Bank of England from 14 October 2008 for a period of two months. In return, the Bank of England paid the Treasury a commercial fee totalling £18.9 million.
	In my view, it is essential that the Bank has the discretion to provide emergency liquidity assistance when it judges it necessary to do so. Over the past year, we have had to provide extraordinary support in what are extraordinary times. I have kept the House informed with numerous statements and made it clear that we would do whatever it took to stabilise the banking system. As a result, no savers in UK banks or building societies have lost money.
	Inevitably, some of the support had to be provided on a confidential basis-something that most people recognise. The judgment on when it is the right time to disclose such operations is a fine one, but I support the Governor's decision to disclose the information yesterday. I commend the statement to the House.

George Osborne: Let me start by making it absolutely clear that we support the actions taken by the Bank of England to maintain financial stability. I completely agree with the Chancellor that, as a general principle, the central bank must be able to carry out its lender of last resort function with the discretion that it deems necessary to preserve the financial system. Its ability to do so will remain under the reform structure of financial regulation that we intend to implement.
	As the deputy governor, Paul Tucker, said yesterday in his evidence to the Select Committee, these loans were a classic lender of last resort operation. So, we support the principle of covert lending operations by the Bank, but of course we also have a responsibility to ask questions on behalf of the taxpayer once the details of such operations are quite rightly made public. I shall therefore first ask the Chancellor specifically about his role. He said that he authorised the indemnity, but will he confirm whether his authorisation was sought for the loans made by the Bank of England, and indeed its operation?
	The Chancellor made this statement because the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and I put in to ask an urgent question. Surely the Chancellor himself should be the person who initially informs Parliament of operations on this scale, particularly when there are very large taxpayer indemnities that he signs off. It has, of course, taken more than a year for the existence of these loans to be disclosed. What discussions has the Chancellor had with the Governor over the last 12 months about whether the disclosure could have been made earlier? In particular, once the Government had declared their intention to insure the assets of both banks in January this year, what did the right hon. Gentleman consider to be the remaining risks that would have resulted from the disclosure of the loans at that time?
	My second question is partly to do with the issue of timing. Is the Chancellor personally satisfied that the Lloyds shareholders were given the maximum possible amount of information about the financial health of HBOS in advance of the merger of the two banks? Was the loan to HBOS fully repaid by the time of the merger in mid-January? What legal advice did he receive about the level of disclosure required, and is he expecting any legal challenges from shareholders?
	Thirdly, as the Chancellor implied in his statement, the Banking Act 2009 removed the requirement for the Bank of England to publish a weekly balance sheet. Was the existence of the loans a motivating factor behind that change, which was of course proposed at the time that the loans were in existence? Is it desirable that the Bank essentially has no requirement to publish regular information about its balance sheet? Does he agree that that at least needs to be kept under review?
	The sheer scale of the loans-they are more than the entire schools budget-raises the question of how the two banks were allowed to pursue funding models that left them so close to collapse in the first place. Does not that illustrate yet again the total failure of the tripartite system of regulation created by this Government? Does it not underline the need for fundamental reform to put the Bank of England back in charge of banking supervision? That argument is now explicitly supported by Jacques de Larosière, the architect of the European changes, and it is driving reforms in Germany, Belgium and America. Indeed, President Obama's economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said this month that separating bank supervision from central banking can cause one to
	"get into a 'left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing' kind of problem in a crisis".
	When asked to cite an example, he singled out the UK, saying that the divided regulatory system had caused "a lot of problems", yet the Government's proposed Financial Services Bill, which we will debate in a couple of days' time, does absolutely nothing to address that flaw at the heart of the regulatory system. We all know why-it was designed by the Prime Minister of this country.
	Finally, I should like to ask the Chancellor about something else that the Governor of the Bank of England said to the Treasury Committee yesterday in his comments on Britain's credit rating. When asked whether Britain was at risk of a downgrade, the Governor of our central bank said:
	"The longer there isn't a credible plan that sets out what action will be taken on the debt, the more"
	there is a risk to that credit rating. Does the Chancellor agree that the only possible interpretation of those remarks is that the Governor does not think that there is currently a "credible plan" to deal with our budget deficit? Why is the Chancellor taking these risks with Britain's credit rating?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of matters, some of which are very important. I should like to deal with them, but I shall begin with a general point. He remarked on the state of RBS and HBOS, and no one could disagree that what the banks did was to get themselves into a situation where eventually they collapsed. However, his points about our regulatory system simply do not hold water, as banks right across the world got into trouble. Lehman Brothers was regulated by the American authorities, as were the other American banks that went down. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Germany, which has also seen banks go down. There was a problem with regulatory systems right across the world, and to suggest that the problem was somehow specific to us simply does not hold water.
	I want to make another point about the American regulators. The problem for the Americans is that they have seven or eight different regulators. The Obama Administration are trying to get around it by establishing some sort of council to bring them together. We have only three organisations responsible-the Bank of England, the FSA and the Treasury, which will always be involved where public money is.
	If the hon. Gentleman thinks for one moment that merging the work of the FSA and the Bank of England, under which the Bank would be responsible for interest rate policy, macro-prudential supervision and the individual supervision of everything from large banks such as HSBC to an independent financial adviser in Ullapool-doing all that at the same time-he is asking for trouble. The disruption would be tremendous. He should think long and hard-my guess is that he is-about whether he would ever see that policy through in the way that he originally announced it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked some important questions, which I would like to deal with and on which I will do him a little more justice. First, he asked an important question about disclosure. The House will remember that during the period of Northern Rock, there was pretty much unanimous agreement that the Bank's inability to act in a confidential way was in itself destabilising. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman wrote to urge me to do something to make it less obvious that the Bank was engaged in such operations, and I agreed with him. The Banking Act 2009 means that the Bank has the discretion as to when it discloses what is going on.
	That discretion lies with the Governor of the Bank of England. It ends the obligation to do a weekly return in which, if one looked at it closely, one could see what had been going on. At a time like last year, if people had realised the extent of what was necessary on a day-to-day basis simply to keep banks open and their cash machines operating-if that had been disclosed at the time, with all that turbulence-far from reassuring people, it would have made a difficult situation much, much worse. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that proposition. That was why we changed the law in the Banking Act-to try to make sure that there was not the exposure that we had in relation to Northern Rock.
	It is for the Governor to decide when the information is disclosed. His judgment was that now we have RBS in the asset protection scheme-that agreement was finally signed just this week-and Lloyds is pursuing its alternative action, and with that water between us and the turbulence of last year, it was safe to disclose this information. As I said in my statement, the judgment will always be a fine one, but that was his judgment and I agree with it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked the important question, in relation to Lloyds, of what was said. The legal responsibility to shareholders lies with the board of directors of a particular institution. In November 2008, when Lloyds published its pre-merger statement, it said:
	"The HBOS Group expects that it will substantially rely for the foreseeable future on the continued availability of these government sponsored arrangements, including central bank liquidity facilities (such as those offered by the Bank of England)".
	It put that statement in. It is for the directors of that bank, properly advised, to decide what they disclose, but I can tell the House that the directors of Lloyds were told by the Bank of England of the nature and extent of the operations, so they knew them at the time. The facilities were repaid at the beginning of January, as I said in my statement. I believe that the final vote taken by the HBOS shareholders took place at the end of January 2009.
	For the sake of completeness, the current Lloyds prospectus in relation to its raising money on the markets at present discloses that it is receiving money, and the amount that it is receiving through the credit guarantee scheme, so it is telling prospective investors what the position is. That is the position in relation to Lloyds.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the indemnity. Of course, because of the size of what was going on in 2008, I had to indemnify the Bank of England. It has a limited balance sheet, but I felt it was my clear duty. Perhaps not at the time, but looking back, people will think we had to take this action, otherwise we would have been faced with a much more difficult situation.
	On the hon. Gentleman's final point, both of us will be at the Dispatch Box tomorrow afternoon, and I intend to return to the wider economy at that stage.

Vincent Cable: We all accept that the intervention had to happen and that it was right in principle to have confidentiality. That confidentiality has to be balanced against accountability to Parliament for the expenditure of very large sums of money. The question is why only yesterday it was judged sufficiently safe for the public and Parliament to be given the information. Why, for example, were we not told about it on 7 March, when those banks entered into the asset protection scheme, or in the Budget a few weeks later? If there was still some major doubt about the stability of the banks, why was that not revealed a month ago when the Chancellor made a statement on the completion of the asset protection scheme? Why was Parliament not told then? Why has he waited so long to give us this information? One has to note, as the shadow Chancellor did, that yesterday's announcement occurred not in Parliament but in the middle of a statement from the Governor. That statement was a devastating indictment of the Government's policy of not splitting up the banks, and this announcement was hidden in the middle of it.
	My second question is about the Chancellor's clear statement that there was no cost to the taxpayer. Is that true? My understanding of the lender of last resort facility is that it carries a commercial rate of interest, but my understanding of these loans is that there was no interest involved. Will he clarify the position on this? If there was a concessional element to the lending, that would mean that a very large public subsidy was involved, even though the loans were repaid. A very large risk was taken with taxpayers' money, and there was an enormous potential cost. We need to be absolutely clear that that cost was paid for by the banks. Will the Chancellor clarify what the interest rates actually were?
	My third question is on the link with Lloyds. The Chancellor has just brought the historical record up to date by reading out what was said by the directors at the time. Indeed, he is quite right to say that there was a general warning that continuing liquidity was required for HBOS, but was it not clear on 1 October, when HBOS became the first bank to require major liquidity help-indeed, half the major package was for HBOS-that this was a can of worms, and that the situation was far worse than had initially been believed? That has been made clear in his statement today. Would not the correct course of action at that time have been to take HBOS into full public ownership in the way that Bradford & Bingley was taken in? Instead, the Lloyds shareholders continued to be encouraged in their belief that this takeover should take place.
	My final question is this: are there any other loans that we do not know about? Can the Chancellor give us a categorical assurance that no other financial institutions have outstanding records of loans that have taken place in this emergency about which he has not yet told the House of Commons?

Alistair Darling: I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman has time to reflect on what he has said, he will agree that his last question was really ridiculous. No Chancellor of the Exchequer or Governor of the Bank of England is going to provide a running commentary on what they may or may not be doing, for perfectly obvious reasons that I would have thought even the hon. Gentleman would recognise. In fact, he did recognise them when Northern Rock was at the height of its difficulties. His question was just plain daft.
	I can tell the House that, to a large extent, because of the action that we and the Bank of England have taken, the banking system is now far more stable than it was. We have got through many of the difficulties that we faced, and we are working our way through others. Only by taking that decisive action were we able to do that. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has the luxury of being a commentator, as opposed to someone who actually has to do these things, but speaking from the other side of the fence, I can tell him that, because of the action we have taken, the banking system is now far more stable, not just here but in other countries as well.
	The hon. Gentleman went back to the question of Lloyds. I will not read out what I have already said, but the directors of Lloyds clearly have an obligation to their shareholders, and they clearly had an obligation in anticipation of their takeover of HBOS. It was for them-properly advised, as I said-to disclose what they needed to in the prospectus. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there then followed a vote by the Lloyds shareholders and a vote by the HBOS shareholders. Both those votes were overwhelming. It is for the members of the Lloyds board itself to decide what to disclose to their shareholders, and there are all sorts of legal considerations that they have to take into account. It is for them to be satisfied that that was the case.
	I really do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument about splitting the banks. We discuss this at just about every statement and Question Time, and I refer him to what I have said on previous occasions. He should bear in mind that Northern Rock was a narrow bank-a classic retail bank-and it got into deep trouble. At the other end of the scale of exotic activities, there was Lehman's, which did not take a single deposit. It, too, got into terrible trouble. The US authorities at the time did precisely what some people suggested and let it go down. We do not have to speculate about what happened: it brought the entire system down at the same time. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that matter.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in these exchanges, and I would simply remind the House that we have a further statement and the continuation of the debate on the Loyal Address to follow. I therefore issue my usual appeal to all hon. Members that each of them should ask a single, short supplementary question, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to provide us with an economical reply.

John McFall: At the time of Northern Rock, the Governor came before the Treasury Committee and said that his inability to ensure lender of last resort facilities on a confidential basis was a grievous omission. It is therefore important to remind ourselves that discretion has to be given to the Bank of England and to the Governor in relation to all these issues. There is a separation between the Bank and politics, but the Chancellor knows-as he said in his letter to me yesterday-that emergency liquidity assistance was advanced to HBOS and RBS in October. Was that decision a short-term notice, or part of a long-term contingency plan? Was any consideration given to the right of the Lloyds TSB shareholders to have that information disclosed to them?

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend asks me about the decision, and I think that, at the time, the Governor was of the view that we had to provide emergency liquidity assistance. I therefore had to indemnify the Bank for that. Let us remember that the decision related to banks in general; it was not about a specific institution. At that time, we were seriously concerned about the banking system as a whole. This was not about an individual bank, although subsequently-this is obviously how the system works-the Governor had to form a view about HBOS, as he did about RBS. However, my decision-his decision-was taken in relation to the general principle, and that was why we took it.
	I should have said to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that, yes, RBS and HBOS did pay a fee in respect of the facilities that they got.

Edward Leigh: Chapter 5 of the Treasury's own document "Managing Public Money" says that when indemnities are given by the Chancellor and full disclosure is not possible, he should write in confidence to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee immediately to explain what has happened. Will the Chancellor now explain to the House how this procedure was followed at the time?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there are long-standing provisions that require that, when the Government take on a contingent liability, we write to him in that way. He no doubt forgot to mention that I have written to him on numerous occasions for very obvious reasons, drawing his attention to contingent liabilities. This particular issue of lender of last resort facilities was actually carried out by the Bank of England, however, and not by the Government. When Parliament decided-pretty much unanimously-that the Bank should have discretion as to when to report, it clearly had in mind that there would be times when it would be dangerous to report exactly what it was doing, because to do so might destabilise the system. So there is a distinction between the emergency liquidity assistance provided by the Bank-which is provided for in the Banking Act 2009, although its origins date back to long before that-and the normal procedures that we have, which we have followed at every single turn.

Jim Cousins: It is plain that the workers and shareholders of Lloyds were mugged. Does the Chancellor agree that all those who were knowingly party to the mugging should go, if they have not gone already?

Alistair Darling: I am not sure that I accept the general premise underlying my hon. Friend's question. I have said on a number of occasions-today and previously-that the responsibility to shareholders lies with the board of directors, who are there to represent them, and I have read out to the House what they said in the prospectus that they published last November.

Michael Fallon: Will the Chancellor confirm that neither the amount nor the scale of these loans was reported properly on page 19 of the HBOS prospectus or on page 33 of the Lloyds prospectus, or reported fully in the Bank of England's report and accounts? If shareholders cannot trust a prospectus, and if the public cannot trust the Bank of England's accounts, who can they trust?

Alistair Darling: The prospectuses issued by HBOS and Lloyds are a matter for those banks, and the hon. Gentleman needs to direct his question to the directors who were responsible at the time.
	On the Bank of England, I assume that the hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury Committee sitting yesterday, where I think the Governor made the point that he was of the view, when his report was published, that those operations should remain confidential, so he exercised his judgment to withhold the precise nature of what was being done. However, by yesterday, he had judged that the time was right to reveal what had been done. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier: it is always a fine judgment on the question of when to make such information available. Had the information been released prematurely and had it caused further problems in the banking system, I am sure that he would have been the first to jump up and complain about it.

Sally Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Governor had not had the courage to take the action that he took, instead of sitting here nit-picking about the timing of the announcement, we could have been contemplating the collapse of the banks and the devastating consequences for our constituencies? Will my right hon. Friend therefore congratulate the Bank on having had the courage to put up the money, get it back with fees and charges and protect the national and public interest?

Alistair Darling: The reason why all central banks throughout the world have the power to provide emergency liquidity assistance is obvious: there will be times when a bank or several banks get into difficulties. However, the system will work only if central banks are able to carry out such operations, where appropriate, confidentially. Of course, once the crisis and the difficulties are over and the system is stabilised, the central bank can disclose what it has done, but, as countless debates in this House have reflected, the need for that facility is beyond question.

Graham Brady: In the post-mortem on Northern Rock, it became clear that the impediment to covert intervention was disclosure requirements not on the Bank of England, but on the company concerned. Would that still have been true if such covert intervention had been contemplated in the instances under discussion?

Alistair Darling: No, I do not think that there was any difficulty in operating the support for RBS and Lloyds. There was, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a lot of debate about the precise strictures on Northern Rock, and whether a particular European Union directive was a problem, and we are pursuing that. However, I have never taken the view that that was the major problem. Northern Rock appeared then to be an isolated case, although it was clear to many that it was not. The major problem at the time was that, despite the Bank's provision of lender of last resort facilities, far from reassuring people it had the opposite effect. However, I do not think that the European directive was ever the major sticking point, but we are pursuing the matter.

Anne McGuire: I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), congratulate the Bank and, indeed, the Chancellor on the speedy action that they took 12 months ago. There is a danger, 12 or 13 months after the event, of trying to second-guess judgments that were extremely difficult at the time. This morning, as I listened to Radio 4, I thought it faintly bizarre that one criticism of the whole effort was that it had been kept confidential, and that not even Robert Peston had managed to find out the information. Does my right hon. Friend share that thought? I congratulate those who maintained that confidentiality over the past 13 months. Perhaps we could have a little more of it.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful for what I take from my right hon. Friend to be a general message of support.

Robert Smith: In the Chancellor's answer and supplementary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), he mentioned the fee that was paid, but he did not address the interest rate. Was it a commercial rate of return, or was there an element of public subsidy?

Alistair Darling: The fees are meant to reflect the cost to the public purse. At the time when such work is done, it has to be done very quickly, so the arrangements are not like a normal commercial loan. However, the most important thing is that the money was repaid, and it was fully covered.

Tom Clarke: I congratulate the Chancellor on an excellent statement and on his firm grasp of complex issues. However, what advice would he give to a constituent of mine-a small business person-who phoned me this morning and said that he employs 30 people and has done everything that Lloyds has asked him to do, yet there is a danger to his company because the cash-flow problem is simply not being dealt with? He congratulates the Chancellor, as I do, but wonders why the Chancellor's policy of extending the commitment of the banks to small businesses appears in this case not to have been applied.

Alistair Darling: As my right hon. Friend knows, part of the arrangement with Lloyds and RBS is that we have lending agreements. I am not familiar with the individual circumstances of the company to which he refers, but I strongly advise him to take the matter up, as I do, with the person who is responsible for, in this case, the bank's Scottish operations to see whether it can be resolved. I have found that that can be fruitful, at times, although I should not want anyone to think there are not any difficulties even for my constituents.

Charles Walker: Was the HBOS merger a good deal for Lloyds staff?

Alistair Darling: I think that Lloyds staff would no doubt have a view on that matter, but the key thing is that the shareholders of those banks decided whether they wanted to go ahead with the merger. The responsibility for passing information to shareholders and prospective investors lies fairly and squarely with the boards of directors of both banks.

Mark Durkan: Will the Chancellor confirm that at no point did he instruct or advise the Governor not to disclose before yesterday? When did the Chancellor become aware of the Governor's decision to disclose?

Alistair Darling: The Governor and I have many discussions about a wide range of matters, as the House will know. However, it is quite clearly for the Governor to decide whether those operations are necessary-especially at that time, the end of 2008 and the beginning of this year. Of course, we talked about those things regularly, and it was for him to decide when he decided to make the disclosure.

Anne Main: What, if any, bonuses were paid to the banks during the period of the emergency loans?

Alistair Darling: I need to write to the hon. Lady. My recollection is that the bonuses for that financial year would have been announced subsequent to that, but I do not want to mislead her. Bonus payments are generally announced in spring, and that would have been after the payments were repaid.
	On the hon. Lady's general point, I must say that there is not a bank in the world that does not owe a great deal to taxpayers throughout the world, because, if they had not stepped in, every single bank would have been affected-not just those that we had to support directly. If we had not stepped in, the banks that we are discussing would have gone down, and the wider problem for all of us is that the situation would not have stopped there: it would have brought down the rest of the banking system and large parts of the economy. No Government could possibly have contemplated that.

Graham Stuart: Covert lending is one thing; encouraging a bank to merge with a recipient is quite another. Surely a merger without complete information, but with a gargantuan loss of shareholder value, should simply not have been allowed in those circumstances.

Alistair Darling: As I said, the decision to go ahead with the merger was eventually taken by the shareholders of both Lloyds and HBOS. They had a vote, and the obligation, as the hon. Gentleman well knows because I can see it from his smirk, lies fairly and squarely with the directors to tell the shareholders what they know.

Graham Stuart: They weren't allowed to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) that I have been good to him: I have got him in-he has asked his question. He must listen to the reply.

Alistair Darling: I am not so sure that the hon. Gentleman is interested in the reply, but as I said earlier the Lloyds directors were fully aware of the circumstances in relation to HBOS. They were told by the Bank of England.

Brian Binley: I will be good, Mr. Speaker. The Government have thrown billions at the banks while the banks have hardened their attitude enormously to small business, to the point where they refuse to extend overdrafts and force expensive loans on small businesses, which do not want them but have no option but to take them. Will the Chancellor look into that business and come back to the House to tell us that he has changed what is an unsatisfactory process for small businesses?

Alistair Darling: I suspect that we will have ample opportunity to return to that tomorrow afternoon on the last day of the debates on the Queen's Speech. Let me just make a general point. Yes, over the past 18 months or so we have had to put a substantial amount of money into the banking system. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that the exceptional liquidity assistance was repaid. As for the other schemes, fees are charged for the credit guarantee scheme, and the money has to be repaid under the special liquidity scheme. Ultimately, of course, we will get back the money that we have put into RBS and Lloyds when we come to sell those banks at whatever time is appropriate.

John Pugh: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer publish now or in future the rate of interest charged, and if not, why not?

Alistair Darling: I am happy to discuss further with the Governor of the Bank of England what further information we can put before the House. The general point of importance is that when these facilities are provided the banks have to lodge collateral, they have to pay a fee, and we get the money back.

William Cash: The Chancellor knows that over the past year I have repeatedly asked him about the true level of indebtedness of the United Kingdom. He also knows that the Office for National Statistics itself has had some difficulty in obtaining the figures; I have raised that issue with him. Would he be good enough to tell me whether the ONS was informed at the appropriate time about the matters that he has raised today? Has it been given the truth, in line with its new independence under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, on which we wholly rely; and has it raised any matters of concern, as it is entitled to under the Act?

Alistair Darling: The ONS's concern is about how the banks in which we have shareholdings should be accounted for in the national statistics. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the conclusion that it has reached. The responsibility for loans of this nature is properly a matter for the National Audit Office, as well. Between all the public authorities, I hope that there will be sufficient examination and disclosure of what is going on. Now that the situation has stabilised, I think there is no difficulty in explaining to people exactly what happened. Indeed, there is everything to be said for doing so, especially for those people who thought at the time that we were doing things that were precipitate or that we perhaps did not need to do. I am afraid that just over 12 months ago we were faced with a quite extraordinary set of conditions that required very dramatic and unprecedented action.

Sammy Wilson: I think that the whole House recognises the importance of the Bank of England's acting as lender of last resort to ensure the liquidity of the banking system. However, does the Chancellor accept that that then places an obligation on these banks not to cause liquidity problems for their customers by the unilateral withdrawal of overdraft and loan facilities or unexpected changes in those conditions? What price has he sought to extract from the banks for this continued level of public support?

Alistair Darling: I updated the House in my statement at the beginning of November. In view of what Mr. Speaker said, I am not going to repeat that, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at it. In it, I set out what the arrangements were and what the banks were paying. I agree with him, and with other hon. Members who have raised this, that there is still a particular problem with small businesses getting funding; that is something that we are pursuing.
	On the particular cases, I strongly advise him, as I advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), that it is well worth taking the matter up with the bank concerned; sometimes matters can be resolved, sometimes not. There is a general problem in this regard. In the case of HBOS customers, for example, there is no doubt that that bank's pricing policy caused it massive problems in not reflecting the true cost of making the loans. Obviously, I do not know what business or bank the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I strongly advise him to pursue the matter with the bank concerned if he has not already done so.

Andrew Pelling: The Chancellor chastised the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for asking questions about what other secret arrangements there might be, and suggested that he should be more than a commentator-he may well be so in the next Parliament. Does he think that in the context of the real drama that occurred 13 months ago, it would have been better if Lloyds Banking Group had used the asset protection plan instead of going to equity holders, whose confidence would have been shaken by the fact that they were not properly advised of the bank's circumstances?

Alistair Darling: The asset protection scheme was not announced until the middle of January, which is of course after the events that we are talking about. The exceptional liquidity assistance had to be provided for at the time. It started as we were working up the capitalisation scheme and then putting it in place, so it predated the asset protection scheme. Had the asset protection scheme been in place and operating, the situation might have been different, but I do not think that anyone would be in a position to say that.

Rob Wilson: Does the Chancellor have a view about how much the taxpayer, and the country, can be allowed to guarantee to banks-that is, how much the country can afford in current circumstances?

Alistair Darling: I am quite clear not only that what we did last year was right but that we could afford to do it. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must ask himself another question. We saw what happened in America when the then American Government let Lehman Brothers go down-it resulted in the American banking system, and very soon the rest of the banking system, going down too.  [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) wants to discuss my phone call, I will happily discuss it with him, but I am very glad that I did not take on the responsibility for an American bank; otherwise, I suspect that he would have a lot to say about it.

Peter Bone: In the Chancellor's statement, he says that £100 billion was taken in collateral by the Bank in support of these massive loans. Will he publish the document supporting that collateral and put a copy in the Library?

Alistair Darling: I would need to discuss with the Governor whether that was appropriate.

John Mason: We accept that in the short term confidentiality is a good thing that gives confidence, but in the longer term openness gives confidence as well. In future, will the Chancellor encourage the Bank of England to report as soon as loans have been repaid?

Alistair Darling: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier. The judgment for the Governor has to be when to disclose, and he has to take into account all the appropriate circumstances, not only in relation to when the loan is to be repaid. The hon. Gentleman will recall that at the time when these loans were being repaid-either side of Christmas and the new year last year-there was a great deal of turbulence in the system as a whole, which is why the Governor understandably decided that he thought he should let matters stabilise. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to reflect on this: the key thing is that we had the resources of the Bank of England, and therefore the UK Government, to intervene to deal with two Scottish banks that had got themselves into terrible difficulties. That has certainly given most people in Scotland pause for thought-it is time that the nationalists thought about it as well.

Scotland's Future in the UK

Jim Murphy: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Government plans about devolution in Scotland: for a stronger Scotland in a stronger United Kingdom.
	Devolution has proved itself to be the right form of governance for Scotland. Scots know that as part of the United Kingdom we have the best of both worlds. First, Scots are proud of the Scottish Parliament and the way that it allows them to find what the late Donald Dewar called "Scottish solutions to Scottish problems". Secondly, the economic events of the past year demonstrate again the added strength of being part of the UK, the fifth largest economy in the world. While Britain brings strength to Scotland, Scotland brings breadth to Britain.
	The White Paper that we are publishing today takes forward the recommendations from the final report of the Commission on Scottish Devolution; again, I would like to put on record our thanks to Sir Ken Calman and his commissioners. On 15 June this year, I welcomed the commission's report on behalf of the Government. I pledged to take the recommendations forward, with consensus and momentum. That is why we established a cross-party steering group. I thank representatives of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party in the House of Commons and in the Scottish Parliament for working together on that group.
	The commission concluded that devolution has been a "remarkable and substantial success". It brings government closer to the people of Scotland and secures Scotland's position within the United Kingdom. In order to refresh the settlement, the commission made recommendations in three distinct areas. First, it recommended that closer working was needed between the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament and between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Secondly, it recommended that a new, more accountable means of financing devolved spending in Scotland was needed, to strengthen the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament. Thirdly, it recommended that while the division of responsibilities between the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament works well, some changes could be made in both directions to further strengthen the devolution settlement. The Government agree with the commission's conclusions, which were based on a wealth of evidence.
	I turn to the first of those recommendations. Scotland has two Parliaments-this Parliament, which remains an important symbol of the UK and continues to have vital daily relevance to Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, which has firmly established itself over the past decade in Scottish hearts and minds. The commission recommended that the two Parliaments should examine how they work together in the interests of Scotland and the UK. Many of the recommendations are first a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament, and I have had the opportunity to meet you both separately.
	The core of the commission's recommendations is about funding for Scotland. Under this Government, public spending across the UK increased in real terms by 42 per cent. in the decade after 1997. The Barnett formula meant that Scotland got the same per-head increase over that period. The commission recognised the benefits of that funding mechanism and how it had given the Scottish Parliament a good start, but 10 years on, it recommended a new deal on funding, retaining the stability and fairness of the block grant while improving accountability.
	Since the first day of devolution, the Scottish Government have been accountable for how they spend taxpayers' money. Under today's proposals, they will also be held to account for how they raise it. We will give the Scottish Parliament greater freedom, but also the responsibility, to set the level of income tax in Scotland. In future, the size of Scotland's budget will be down to decisions made in Scotland. In addition to new tax powers, we will give the Scottish Parliament new powers and responsibilities on capital borrowing. We will also devolve stamp duty land tax, aggregates levy and landfill tax, and we will keep the commission's recommendation about air passenger duty under review.
	While we rightly celebrate today the strength that the Union of the United Kingdom provides, that unity does not mean uniformity. So in addition to a new deal on funding, we agree in principle to devolve new powers to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. On the power to regulate air weapons, the Government have kept controls under close scrutiny and there are encouraging signs that recent changes are having an effect. However, the Government agree in principle to devolve the regulation of air weapons to the Scottish Parliament.
	We will also devolve the power to set the drink-drive limit. We believe that there are benefits to having a single drink-drive limit in place across Great Britain, but there are no overwhelming reasons why the limit should not be devolved. Additionally, the Government will ensure that Scottish Ministers have the power that they need to determine the national speed limit in Scotland, along with their existing broad powers to determine speed limits.
	Elsewhere we will take the opportunity, as the commission recommended, to reserve powers to the UK Parliament where experience has shown that a common approach across Britain or the UK works better. For example, we will reserve the regulation of all health care professions to ensure a consistent regulatory regime across the country.
	The full package of proposals is set out in the White Paper that we are publishing today. We will continue to take our plans forward with consensus and momentum, and we will introduce a Scotland Bill as soon as possible in the next Parliament to introduce the Calman package. We will phase in the new financial arrangements carefully, and we plan to have the changes in place during the next term of the Scottish Parliament.
	Support for Scottish devolution remains strong in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, and so does support for the Union of the United Kingdom. The plans that the Government are setting out today will create a stronger, more accountable Scottish Parliament within the framework of the United Kingdom. That strength through unity is a great asset, and today is an important step in building a stronger Scotland and a new deal for devolution. I commend this statement to the House.

David Mundell: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, for the advance notice of it and for the extent to which both he and his predecessor have engaged with fellow Unionist politicians in Scotland during the Calman process. I also put on record my thanks to the commissioners for their work. The Conservatives fully supported the setting up of the commission and have played a full part in its work.
	I look forward to reading the White Paper, but does the Secretary of State concede that the timing of it so near an election inevitably means that the issue will have to be revisited by the next Government? Does he acknowledge that his Government's White Paper should not bind any incoming Conservative Government? Conservatives accept that the Scottish Parliament needs to be more financially accountable, that the devolution settlement needs to be tidied up and that Westminster and Holyrood need to start working constructively together for the good of Scotland and Britain, but we will ensure those things through our own White Paper, not this Government's proposals launched in the dying days of this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State welcome that commitment and undertake to continue in the spirit of Calman, on the basis of consensus and momentum, regardless of who is in government, and resist the temptation to play party politics with such an important issue as Scotland's constitution?
	Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the guiding principle in deliberations on the Calman process has been, and must continue to be, securing Scotland's position within the United Kingdom? Is he as heartened as I am by recent polling in Scotland that demonstrates that there is very little support for separatism and an independence referendum? Does he accept Sir Kenneth Calman's view that the establishment of better working relationships between the British Government and the Scottish Government and between the Parliaments here and at Holyrood must be in place to underpin every other recommendation in his report? Given that most of the measures to improve relationships do not require any legislation, can he tell us what he will do to re-establish the good will between Westminster and Holyrood, which appears to have ebbed away?
	Whatever differences we may have with the Labour Government about how to take forward the Calman recommendations, may I invite the Secretary of State to agree with me that they are as nothing compared with the divide between us and the Scottish National party? We are Unionists; they are separatists. We are in the mainstream of the constitutional debate; they are on the extreme.
	However, does the Secretary of State also agree that there are no grounds for complacency? The Calman commission contrasts markedly with the so-called "national conversation", whose main participants appear to be insomniac cyber-nats. Is it not the case that the work of the commission, not Mr. Salmond's publicly funded, self-indulgent chit-chat, will endure and form the basis for taking-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is in the midst of his rhetorical flow, but I appeal to him to remember that when he is referring to a right hon. Member of the House, he must do so with respect to the constituency rather than by name.

David Mundell: Is it not the case that the First Minister of Scotland's publicly funded, self-indulgent chit-chat will not survive? It is the work of the commission that will endure and form the basis for taking forward the devolved settlement in Scotland for the benefit of the people of Scotland and Britain.

Jim Murphy: I agree with one of- [Interruption.] I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for the hullabaloo and noise in the Chamber, but you will be aware that when these debates take place and Scottish MPs get together and argue so passionately on Scottish issues, it is a bit like watching a family argue.
	I agree with one of the main points that the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made, which is that the recent polling evidence is pretty clear-most Scots are fiercely patriotic and love Scotland, and like ourselves believe in Scotland and have a great sense of our history and our future, but they have dual identity and also have a belief in being part of something bigger. That unites most Scots and people across the rest of the UK. I got in trouble for saying this some time ago, but I happen to believe that the Scottish Government made quite a good start after they were elected with the energy and excitement that took them over the finishing line. However, like most people in Scotland, I am starting to believe that they are a novelty that is wearing off.
	On the points that the hon. Gentleman made- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognise that the exchanges at this stage are relatively good natured, and that there are many smiles on faces and so on, but I say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that I think he is setting a bad example. If he were in a school class, he would be in some danger of detention. I do not want to see that.

Jim Murphy: The five SNP Members-the other one is up the road-continue to shout across the Chamber, but most people in Scotland have stopped listening to them, regardless how loud they shout. The by-election result in Glasgow showed that absolutely conclusively.
	However, on the substance of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, most Scots want to see this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament working much better together and the UK Government working much more closely with the Scottish Government. I suspect that at local level, they would like to see Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament and local councillors, of all parties, particularly at a time of recession, working together and trying to set aside, where they can, partisan divides. That is why it is pretty disappointing that, when there is a raft of proposals about better working relationships-we are interested in taking them all forward and working through them-the Scottish Government have just flatly refused to accept two thirds of them.
	That is probably because they are not really interested in embedding the working relationships between the UK and Scottish Parliaments in the medium term, because they want to rip Scotland out of the UK. As the hon. Gentleman alluded to, it is important to have a greater sense of teamwork, which we have had through this process, with Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, and business and trade union leaders, involved in the Calman process and the steering group.
	Finally, much of the hon. Gentleman's speech was- [ Interruption. ] Much of it was humorous rather than informative. We look forward to hearing the detail of his response to the White Paper once he has had the chance to read it in greater detail.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it prior to coming to the Chamber. I also place on record my party's gratitude to Sir Kenneth Calman and the members of his commission for their very substantive and substantial piece of work. I should also place on record some recognition of the contribution of the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), who was instrumental in introducing this process.
	On the substance of the White Paper and the Secretary of State's statement, I am completely in support of the Government's position, which is of practical as well as constitutional significance. For those in Scotland who want a new Forth bridge, for example, and who see it as vital to Scotland's economic future, there is now no barrier to its delivery. If the Government in Edinburgh want to delay it further, they will have to blame themselves rather than looking south of the border.
	However, I must ask the Secretary of State what his White Paper really adds to the process apart from further delaying implementation when there is consensus, and giving the Conservatives an opportunity for the sort of backsliding that we have just seen. I listened to the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) speaking about producing another White Paper the other side of a general election, and I could almost hear the ghost of Sir Alec Douglas-Home speaking prior to the 1979 referendum. He promised that we would get something better from the Conservatives, but they betrayed us after the 1979 election, and they would betray us again tomorrow given half a chance which, fortunately, they are unlikely to get.
	May I also remind the Secretary of State that Calman was established because we wanted to make the UK work better? In order to do that, we must now move forward with the work that Calman acknowledged needed to be done, and we must find a needs-based formula to replace the Barnett formula. When will the Secretary of State and the Government understand that serious threats to the future of the Union, which exist, can come from the south as well as the north of the border?

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the process and his gracious comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne). The whole House acknowledges the phenomenal amount of energy that he put into the process. I also thank the Scottish Parliament which, of course, initiated the whole process, despite the Scottish Government not participating.
	I am not going to referee the disagreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. I am determined simply to try to find a common purpose, maintain consensus and drive forward with momentum.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is now a new capital borrowing power from the national loans fund. That has been demanded in Scotland and it is right that after the Calman commission recommended it, the Government are now committed to it.
	The hon. Gentleman and the House will be interested to know that Sir Ken Calman made 63 recommendations. Twenty-one were for the Parliaments, but 42 were for Her Majesty's Government, and we are committed to taking forward 39 of them. We have been very clear about this: it is our intention to introduce a Bill, as soon as possible in the next Parliament, to put those measures in place during the next Scottish Parliament. I think that that will be welcomed across Scotland.
	Finally, on the hon. Gentleman's point about the time scale, Sir Ken Calman himself said that
	"it is...a package of 63 recommendations which hang together."
	It is our intention to deal with them as a package in a Scotland Bill early in the new Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members are hoping to catch my eye, and they will be aware that the debate on the Queen's Speech will continue after the statement. I therefore ask for a single, brief question and a similar response.

Anne McGuire: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that both the constitutional convention that established the Scottish Parliament-at least, it built the momentum for its establishment-and the Calman commission brought consensus within Scottish politics? The results of the convention and the commission are due to the dedication, commitment and hard work of the people who participated. The one constant that was absent from both processes was the Scottish National party which, when it comes to the crunch, is more interested in what is important for the SNP than in standing up for Scotland.

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The constitutional convention that brought about the Scotland Act 1998 was boycotted by the SNP, and the Calman commission, which has brought about this White Paper, has been boycotted by the SNP. As she said, the fact is that the SNP is so obsessed with breaking up Britain by ripping Scotland out of the heart of the UK that it refuses to find common cause with anyone else across the whole of Scotland. That obsession is increasingly a minority sport in Scotland.

Eleanor Laing: I entirely agree with what the Secretary of State just said. I warmly welcome the Unionist consensus that has brought about this excellent report from Sir Kenneth Calman and the greater accountability that will flow from it. However, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a danger that a consensus of the left-the Labour party, the SNP and the Liberals-would be likely to bring about an increase in taxes under the plans for greater accountability, whereas what Scotland really needs for economic growth and an increase in jobs and prosperity, is a Government who, when fiscal ability allows, will cut taxes? The only Governments who ever promise to do that are Conservative Governments.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I asked for brief questions, and I must insist on brief questions.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Lady is right in some respects, but she is wrong to describe the SNP as a party of the left. It is a party of all things to all people, depending on which part of Scotland it is seeking votes from. The quasi-revolutionary party seen in parts of Glasgow is different from the small-c conservatives seen in Perthshire. Nevertheless, she is right about one thing: the Scottish Parliament is currently responsible only for spending money and there is an accountability gap. We want to right that and complete Donald Dewar's unfinished business by having a greater degree of accountability in Scotland for money that is raised in Scotland.

David Cairns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolution ought not to be about simply moving powers from one institution to another, but about empowering the people of Scotland in their local communities? We should be much bolder than we are about removing powers from this place and from the Scottish Parliament to ensure that local communities, councils and health authorities are empowered to meet the needs of the people of Scotland. Now is the time to do that, given that the wheels are now well and truly off the nationalist bandwagon.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. We are doing what will work best for Scotland and the UK, which is why we would have powers in the House of Commons on health care professionals and we also want unified arrangements on charity law and insolvency. My hon. Friend has played a pivotal role in bringing about this process, and it is right that we should extend devolution beyond the Scottish Parliament into local communities to people and their families. That is why the future jobs fund is so important: it is about local communities, the voluntary sector and local authorities working together in a team approach to get families through this global recession.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. I note how pleased Labour and Conservative MPs have been to agree with what he has said so far.
	I am pleased that there is a growing consensus that normal nations should make decisions for themselves while working closely with their neighbours and friends. The best future for Scotland is guaranteed with the full powers of independence, and the people should be able to decide that in a referendum. We should bring that referendum on.
	There is cross-party consensus that we should devolve decision making on air weapons, the drink-drive limit and the speed limit. Given the agreement of the Scottish Government since June to implement these measures immediately through statutory instrument, why are they being put off by Whitehall until after the election? What explanation will the Secretary of State give to the mother, father and family of a victim who could have been saved from harm, but was not because the UK Government did not act for a year?

Jim Murphy: I am not sure that that contribution was worth waiting for. The issue of air guns, for example, will require more than a press release. It is much more difficult to write and pass a law than it is to write a flimsy, superficial press release for media consumption. We have moved considerably on air guns and the UK Government have changed their view, but making that happen will require primary legislation in the House of Commons, which is much more complicated that issuing a simple nationalist press release.
	The problem for the hon. Gentleman and the SNP is that he always behaves like a nationalist and never behaves like a patriot. A nationalist puts the SNP first, but a patriot puts Scotland first. That is the difference between my party and his, and why Scotland is increasingly turning its back on the SNP.

Rosemary McKenna: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his approach to the Calman commission. It is exactly what was envisaged by those people involved in the constitutional convention. Does he share my view that this is a coherent package of measures that includes evidence supporting the assignment to the UK Parliament of those measures that should be so assigned, and that it should be delivered as such?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. Unlike the half dozen or fewer SNP Members, she is not interested in playing these nationalist games of pick and mix. We are doing what is right for Scotland, and strengthening it inside the UK. When Sir Ken Calman proposed changes in the reservation of powers on insolvency, charities and health care professionals, we were attracted to the idea of a UK-wide position in those areas, and we have said so in the White Paper. We were less attracted to the food labelling proposals, for good reason.
	Most Scots know that they get the best of both worlds through having a Scottish Parliament and a UK Parliament. They get a strong, patriotic and important Scotland inside the fifth largest economy in the world, and they will continue to celebrate that. We are stronger together, and we would be much weaker apart, as the economic circumstances of the past year have proven conclusively.

Philip Davies: The biggest threat to the UK does not come from Scotland, but from England. If the Secretary of State does not do something to stop Scottish MPs voting on legislation that applies only to England whereas English MPs have no decision-making influence on Scotland, or something to make the funding formula fairer to England, the threat to the UK will come from England.

Jim Murphy: Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, when he talked about the threat to the Union, I expected him to say that it came from the European Union. People across the UK know about our shared heritage. We share these islands and we have so much in common. We are fiercely defensive and supportive of each other. We have together achieved so much over the decades and I believe that our strongest and best days lie ahead of us. We need to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has additional powers, but I hope that his constituents will be reassured by the fact that this is not about additional money for the Scottish Government. It is about additional accountability and the holding to account by the people of Scotland of the Scottish Government not only for what they spend, but for how the money is raised. That is an important constitutional innovation.

Brian H Donohoe: On a practical point in connection with the drink-driving limits, is it not imperative that if a variant were introduced, both Administrations-in Edinburgh and here-should work together to prevent motorists from becoming confused?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is characteristically correct. There is an attraction in having similar or the same drink-drive limits across Great Britain, but based on the evidence provided to Calman, we have decided that there is a case for devolving that power to the Scottish Parliament. It would have to think very carefully about introducing a different limit for Scotland and the possible consequences, but it will be for it to decide ultimately. We joust across party divides on such matters and the SNP may be many things, but it is not foolish. It knows that if it were to introduce a different drink-drive limit, it would have to have some degree of co-operation, education and information for drivers and police forces, especially in those areas just north and south of the border.

Willie Rennie: Despite all the noise in the Chamber, there is a cross-party consensus and even the SNP Members are behind these proposals. The Bill would get a smooth passage through this House and the other place. I cannot understand why, when the practical benefits would include the funding of the Forth crossing, we cannot just get on with it. We would be right behind the Secretary of State.

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this and his commitment to the package that we unveiled today. As Sir Ken Calman has said, this is a package of 63 recommendations which hang together. We intend to take forward 39 of the 42 that apply to the Government. On the question of the Forth road bridge, there is a deal on the table. The Scottish Government have unprecedented flexibility, not matched in any other Department in Whitehall or other part of the UK Government, and £1 billion that would help to make the Forth road bridge a reality. Unfortunately, for reasons of ideology, they are turning their back on that unprecedented deal. They have the constitutional right to be wrong, but it is not too late for them to change their minds.

Sandra Osborne: Does the Secretary of State agree that, for the sake of Scotland, it is a pity that the SNP did not support the Calman commission, and that we should now have an end to the constitutional wrangling when the proposals are put into effect?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is on the money again when it comes to such issues. The SNP has set its nationalist face against sensible, radical reforms entrenching Scotland within the United Kingdom. She is also right that, as important as the measures that we announced today are, our biggest priority is to get Scotland through the recession and to work with people who are out of work to get them back into work as soon as possible. In publishing the White Paper, seeking a consensus and driving momentum, I want to return soon to getting Scotland back to work in this recession-because that is the public's obsession in Scotland, even if it is not the SNP's.

Alan Beith: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Constitutional Affairs Committee's report on devolution 10 years on is in line with the Calman recommendations, but warned that the stability of the Union was threatened by the fact that the governance of England had not been addressed and that it was still governed in a relatively centralised way by what is supposed to be the Government of the United Kingdom?

Jim Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with authority, through his Committee work. As he knows, of course, we have devolved powers across the United Kingdom-to Northern Ireland, London, Scotland and Wales. That has not always been to our political advantage, as Scotland-and currently London-shows, but it was the right thing to do. Our unwritten constitution has never been a precise settlement, and today is an important step towards ensuring greater accountability. When we have closed the gap in the Scottish settlement and completed Donald Dewar's unfinished business, the Scottish Government and Parliament will have to take annual tax decisions. Instead of blaming London or Britain-bizarrely, in the light of events over the past year-people in the Scottish Parliament will have to look in the mirror when it comes to Scotland's future and the size of its budget.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend, his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) and my constituent Sir Kenneth Calman for their work, and I am sure that my predecessor, Donald Dewar, would have been most pleased with what they have come up with. However, will they reconsider some of the reserved issues, such as energy, on which Scotland will miss out on billions of pounds of investment in areas such as Hunterston and Torness, where no one is allowed to build nuclear power stations because of some stupid, idiotic rule brought in by the Scottish Government?

Jim Murphy: I am happy to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's constituent, who has done a remarkable job over the past few months, and I am honoured to pay tribute to the late Donald Dewar who did so much to bring about the institution of the Scottish Parliament. He served with enormous distinction as the first First Minister of the Scottish Parliament.
	The SNP is wrong on nuclear power stations, but again-I return to this point-the constitutional arrangements enable it to be wrong. My hon. Friend's frustration about its nuclear policy is a stronger argument for changing the Government in the Scottish Parliament than for changing the devolution settlement, and I am confident that most people in Scotland agree with that.

Angus MacNeil: Recently, a Government Minister, Lord Bach, praised the Isle of Man as beneficial to the UK's economy. The Isle of Man has about the population of Paisley, but has far more independence and autonomy. Why can Scotland not have the powers and autonomy of the Isle of Man?

Jim Murphy: I mean no disservice to the places that I am about to mention. Previously, the hon. Gentleman has taken us on a virtual tour of the world, although he did not mention the Western Isles. We have heard that Scotland would be wonderful if only it could be like Iceland, which tragically-I do not celebrate this-is in search of an economic purpose. His party has compared Scotland to Ireland, which technically is in depression-as a Murphy, I take no comfort in saying that Ireland is in real difficulties. Now the SNP is saying that it is a nationalist cause to be like the Isle of Man. No disrespect to the Isle of Man, but Scotland's future does not lie in being like the Isle of Man. This is another example of the SNP putting its obsession before our country. Most Scots will want their country to be not like Iceland, Ireland-despite our respect-or the Isle of Man, but like Scotland: a proud, equal part of the United Kingdom, which is the most successful union of nations that this world has ever known.

Gordon Banks: Improved intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary relationships are necessary for good governance of my constituents. However, does the lack of co-operation by the SNP with the Calman commission put that in jeopardy; or does it simply place the SNP in jeopardy?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right that one of the dangers here is that the Scottish Government- [Interruption.].

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Please may we have some quiet in the Chamber while the Secretary of State is replying?

Jim Murphy: I hope that I can reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that hon. Members were shouting not at me-I hope-but at the five across the way.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that some of the measures are jeopardised by virtue of the minority Scottish Government continuing to be dogmatic and boycotting the process. They went AWOL on the constitutional convention and were AWOL on the Calman commission and the White Paper. However, the majority view in Scotland will force them to change their mind, because the belligerent obsession with breaking Scotland out of the United Kingdom and holding the immediate referendum is supported by about one person in eight-even fewer than the SNP got in the by-election in Glasgow, North-East.

William McCrea: I think that there is a consensus in the House that devolution is important and good for the people of Scotland and the other regions of the United Kingdom that have it. We, in Northern Ireland, would love to have the luxury of the Scottish people of being able to elect our own Government without enforced power-sharing. However, is it not important that no action be taken to break up the unity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Jim Murphy: I will not second-guess the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. I have enough complications being Secretary of State for Scotland, so I will not intrude on the challenges facing, and fascination of being, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, the hon. Gentleman's central point is correct: by all tests of logic and economic rationale, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England are stronger for sticking together. Look at what has happened over the past year. We can dispute whether we got each policy right, but it is certainly the conviction of the majority of people in all parts of the United Kingdom that over the past year we, on these islands, have been better for sticking together and getting through the recession. With one exception, regardless of party politics, most of us know that we will get through the recession, partly because of the strength that the United Kingdom gives us.

Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the announcement of the Government's commitment to the policy on devolution means that the next general election in Scotland will effectively be a referendum between, on the one hand, separation, isolation, job losses and misery and, on the other hand, strengthened devolution, continued shipyard orders, happiness and joy?

Jim Murphy: Believe it or not, but that is the hardest question that I have had to respond to all day. We have a big choice to make over the future constitutional arrangements in Scotland. The majority of Scots are on one side-of strengthening the Parliament-and the SNP is on the other side. It is entitled to be there, but ultimately the next election will be a two-horse race in Scotland-it is the same two-horse race in the rest of Great Britain-between the Labour and Conservative parties. Increasingly, the SNP is a sideshow in the two-horse race, and most people in Scotland know that.

Andrew Pelling: I know that the Secretary of State was trying to be whimsical when he said that this was mainly a matter for robust debate among Scottish Members, but does he agree that the matter is also important to English Members? Would it not be appropriate for the Government to invest time in producing a contingency plan for independence, if only so that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to show how strongly he feels that Scottish independence would be disruptive?

Jim Murphy: It is important to maintain that careful consensus across the United Kingdom about funding and powers. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is in his place today, because I know that he takes an interest in those issues. I do not want to second-guess his constituents, but I would guess that they too have a sense that there is something special about the shared heritage of these islands and something remarkable about all that we have achieved together. Regardless of the to-ing and fro-ing over specific disagreements that we might have across party divides, being part of the United Kingdom is great for Croydon-I know that there is no attempt to remove Croydon from the United Kingdom-and great too for the four nations of the United Kingdom. However, I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman some more about the issue, if he thinks that would be helpful.

Point of Order

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given Mr. Speaker and the Leader of the House notice of my point of order. I wonder whether I might inquire into whether there is anything that you can do to ensure that we get proper debate on the Equality Bill. You will know that it is a Bill of 205 clauses and 28 schedules, with 34 new clauses, two new schedules and 52 amendments tabled already, and we have not yet seen any Government amendments or new clauses. The Leader of the House has given two clear assurances at the Dispatch Box that she would not only discuss the timetabling of the Bill with Opposition Front Benchers, but ensure that the handling of the Bill on Report would be such that the Bill would be an exemplar. So far she has not engaged with Opposition Front Benchers about timetabling, and if we have only one day on Report, the only example that the Bill will set will be a poor one. What can you do, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that we get proper debate on that matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving Mr. Speaker notice of his point of order. However, he will not be surprised to hear that it is not a point of order for the Chair. None the less, his comments are on the record and they will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. Tomorrow is business questions, when I have no doubt that he will have an opportunity to put his question to the Leader of the House.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Personal Care At Home Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Andy Burnham, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Alan Johnson, Secretary John Denham, Secretary Ed Balls, Secretary Yvette Cooper and Mr. Phil Hope, presented a Bill to amend section 15 of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 so as to remove the restriction on the period for which personal care may be provided free of charge to persons living at home; and to make consequential provision.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 11) with explanatory notes (Bill 11-EN).

Debate on the Address
	 — 
	[5th Day]

Debate resumed (Order, 18 November).
	 Question again proposed,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
	Most Gracious Sovereign,
	We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Home Office and Work and Pensions

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following that announcement about which amendment the Chair has selected, might one relay back to Mr. Speaker the fact that there is growing pressure in the House for a debate on a motion that is amendable on Afghanistan? Although it might not have been appropriate today, I hope that he will find ways of allowing the views of the House to be registered on that issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I will ensure that Mr. Speaker is aware of the right hon. Gentleman's comments.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
	"but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to offer answers to the growing social challenges facing the United Kingdom, and proposes no new ideas about ending the culture of deprivation and welfare dependency in many parts of the country or on dealing with the growing level of economic inactivity; note that it offers no fresh solutions to the challenge of anti-social behaviour in communities around the country, nor does it reform the licensing system to tackle alcohol-fuelled disorder; and further regret that after 12 years in power the Government brings forward no new approaches to the challenges the country faces."
	Twelve years is a long time to be in government. It gives any Government as long as they should sensibly need to demonstrate that they can make a difference. By next May, when they will be returning to the country for the fourth time to ask for a mandate, the Government will have been in power for 13 years, so the question for every voter is do they really deserve one? This afternoon I want to look at the things that the Government promised all those years ago-things that they have continued to promise, year after year, in virtually every Queen's Speech, including this one-and to ask a simple question: have they delivered the things that they promised?
	Back in 1994, a new, young Labour leader set out his stall to the party conference, telling his delegates, in some of his most memorable phrases, what needed to be done:
	"We can all get angry because crime hurts,"
	he told us,
	"and it hurts most the people who are least able to fight back. But it is not enough to get angry, to stamp your feet, and shout from the Tory conference platform. That is the soft option. We need a new approach. One that is tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime."
	In the intervening years, the Labour Government have had more than a fair chance to deal with the challenges that he talked about. They have had the money, with £350 billion spent on worklessness, at least £70 billion spent on policing and other crime fighting and more than £20 billion spent on early-years and child care services since 1997. They have also had the time, over these 12 long years, so now it seems entirely fair to look at what has happened in Britain and assess the degree to which our social challenges have begun to reduce.
	Let us use that speech back in 1994 by the man who became Prime Minister as a benchmark against which to judge the success or failure of this Government. "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" became the bywords for this Government's approach to law and order. In that speech, the then Leader of the Opposition and subsequently Prime Minister set out a range of detailed programmes that he said were essential to fighting crime. So how did they do?
	Let us start, as Tony Blair did on that September day, with the bit in his speech about being tough on crime. First on the list were measures to tackle juvenile offending. They have been a feature of virtually every one of the 49 criminal justice Bills that we have had since then. We have had initiative after initiative and new idea after new idea. Surely that must have made a difference. The number of persistent young offenders sentenced by courts in England and Wales have increased by 92 per cent. since 1997. In 2007-08, more than 93,000 youngsters aged 10 to 17 entered the criminal justice system for the first time, up from only 78,000 five years previously, in 2002-03. Just a couple of weeks ago, Home Office research showed that 72 per cent. of 10 to 25-year-olds admitted to committing crime or antisocial behaviour within a four-year period.
	The next bit in the speech was the plan to crack down on illegal firearms. Over the past decade, there has been a big jump in gun crime. The number of firearms offences, excluding air weapons, has increased from 5,209 a decade ago to a provisional figure of 8,184 in 2008-09, an increase of 57 per cent. The number of people injured or killed by a gun has more than doubled, increasing from 864 a decade ago to 1,760 in 2008-09. Behind those figures have been a series of high-profile tragedies, punishment shootings and a culture of weapons on our streets not seen previously.
	Tony Blair then talked about the need to punish properly crimes of violence, including racial violence. Violent crime has increased from 615,000 offences in 1998-99 to just over 1 million in 2008-09, an increase of 68 per cent. In 1998, 23,500 people were cautioned for violence against the person. In 2007, that figure had doubled, to 52,300.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in the Queen's Speech debate last week that violent crime had risen by 70 per cent.-I notice that the figure has now come down to 68 per cent. I wrote to him-and have yet to receive a reply-pointing out that the British crime survey, which the Opposition introduced and which, as far as I know, everyone agrees is about impeccable as one can get, shows a 41 per cent. decrease in violent crime. The recorded crime figures do show an increase, but that is because the statistics changed in 2002 to include common assault, which was previously in a different category. I am glad to have this debate, but can we have it on the facts? Can the hon. Gentleman also confirm that, according to the British crime survey, violent crime is down by 41 per cent. and that the figures used by him and his right hon. Friend apply to a statistical change that took place in 2002?

Chris Grayling: The Home Secretary needs to understand one simple point about the shortcomings of the British crime survey. In its categorisation of violent crime the British crime survey does not include murder, which the last time I looked was a violent crime. There are a number of areas of violent crime that are not covered in the British crime survey, so by definition it cannot provide a true reflection of what is happening in this country.

Christopher Huhne: There is, of course, a reason why the British crime survey does not include murder, which is that it is quite difficult for people to respond to a survey if they have been murdered. I wonder whether there has not been a substantial change in murder over time. I find it rather worrying that the hon. Gentleman is making that point about statistics when I thought that he agreed with us that we should have independent publication of the statistics and not resort to the sort of political shenanigans that he has just displayed, using reported crime statistics when he knows perfectly well-indeed, the previous Conservative Government said this repeatedly-that the British crime survey is a more reliable estimate.

Chris Grayling: I am sorry, but I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree that we should have independent figures. The figures have been changed a number of times over the years by the Government, as we know from 18 months ago under the previous Secretary of State when there were issues about the Government's use of figures. Of course we should have independent statistics, but we can deal only with the tools that we have available. They show, for example, that racially and religiously aggravated harassment has also increased-more than doubled-over the past decade.
	The fourth pledge given before the Government took office was to give the victims of crime the right to be consulted before charges were dropped or changed. What a hollow promise that turned out to be, particularly given the Home Secretary's comments just last week that "in an ideal world" every victim would be "visited by the police", though it was admitted at the time that doing so would be "rather challenging". If we talk to the victims of crime, a very different picture emerges-one in which they receive very little information about what is going on and are not sure even when trials are happening. The Home Secretary has talked to victims of crime, so he knows that the promises made to the victims of crime back in the 1990s have not been fulfilled a decade later.
	One of the most distressing cases of failed communications I have come across involved the owner of a post office in Worcestershire, who was brutally beaten by a gang of armed raiders and has still not made a full recovery. The assailants were caught and jailed. Their sentences were reduced substantially on appeal, but the victims of that crime were not even told that the appeal was happening. I know from having talked to the victims in that case that their sense of fear and misery about what happened to them was made much worse as a result.

David Burrowes: My hon. Friend is making a crucial point about the lack of information for victims. Although several years ago the Government promised £11 million to the Crown Prosecution Service to track all cases online, is he concerned that we have still not reached that point and that we are to have yet another White Paper in which the same promises will be made but not delivered?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that has been the story of criminal justice under this Government-promise and pledge and initiative made again and again, but little delivery or action.
	Tough on crime? Fifteen years after it was first made, that promise now looks pretty hollow. By the test that Mr. Blair set for a future Labour Government back in that first conference speech, in office they have failed again and again. All these years later, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) rightly says, they are still failing.
	Did the Government do any better on the causes of crime? Mr. Blair picked three things that he was going to do, and a comprehensive crime prevention programme was at the top of his list. In Labour's 1997 manifesto, this "comprehensive programme" had changed into placing
	"a new responsibility on local authorities to develop statutory partnerships to help prevent crime",
	which the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced. That is rather different from a comprehensive crime prevention programme.
	Of course-let us give the Government credit-there have been some successes in fighting crime over the years that have had a big impact on the overall figures. I have to say, however, that that has not always been down to the Government. We owe a big debt of gratitude to the motor manufacturers, for example, who have taken huge steps forward in automotive security, and as a result there is less automotive crime. More and more householders have taken things into their own hands, dramatically improving household security with better locks and alarms, not to mention the widespread use of double glazing, which makes it more difficult to break into a house. There have been some benefits and some successes under Labour, but many of them have come from way outside the impact of Government policy.
	The next Blair pledge on the causes of crime was an anti-drugs initiative. Did that work? Recorded drugs offences have increased from 135,000 in 1998-99 to 243,000 last year-an increase of 79 per cent. Between 1998 and 2008-09, the proportion of adults using cocaine has more than doubled. A recent report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that compared drug use in 28 countries in Europe revealed that we had the highest proportion of cocaine use among adults and 15 and 16-year-olds-not much of a success there.
	Then there is pledge No. 3-the real area where change is needed if we are to break the cycle of poverty, deprivation, alienation and disorder in our society. The former Prime Minister said that we needed long-term measures to break the culture of drugs, family instability, high unemployment and urban squalor. There has been pretty broad agreement across the House in recent years that getting people off benefits and into work is an essential part of tackling a whole range of challenges from family breakdown to crime. I know that that view is shared by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who I see in his place; he has argued persistently over the years for tough action in this area.
	The Labour party manifesto back in 1997 said:
	"We will face up to the new issues that confront us. We will be the party of welfare reform. In consultation and partnership with the people, we will design a modern welfare state based on rights and duties going together, fit for the modern world."
	I know that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead tried hard to deliver that and I know that the current Prime Minister stopped him from doing so. In reality, how have the Government done? There are 2.5 million unemployed people today-20 per cent. higher than in 1997. We now have the highest rate of youth unemployment on record, with one in five young people unable to find a job.
	We are in the middle of a financial crisis, so before Labour Members get too exercised about that, let us take a different benchmark to judge performance: incapacity benefit. When he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister said in his first Budget speech:
	"No one in our society...should be excluded from the right to work either because of disability or incapacity, if they want to do some work."
	He said:
	"we will also bring forward proposals to help those who are disabled or on incapacity benefit who want training or work... these comprehensive and ambitious initiatives mean that, from now on, no section of society should suffer permanent exclusion."-[ Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 310.]
	As he made that speech, there were 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit. Twelve years on, there are 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit.
	So what went wrong? We have to remember all the Government's boasts over the past 12 years about the number of new jobs that they have created. Even though we are now in difficult times for employment, they will still tell us that there are more people in work than there were in 1997. How is that possible? The answer is very simple-I pay tribute again to the work done by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, who has highlighted many of these issues over the months and years-because the vast majority of the new jobs created under this Government went to migrant workers entering this country from overseas.

Frank Field: As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to cite me earlier, may I ask him a question about how he drew up the amendment that we are debating today? If we ask our voters, as we do by opinion poll, which issue most concerns them, we find that it is immigration. Why when tabling their amendment did the Opposition not want us to debate immigration as part of the Gracious Speech?

Chris Grayling: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we may debate issues broadly within the remit of the Gracious Speech. I will talk about immigration in the course of my speech and I will be delighted to hear him do so too, if he seeks to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The truth is-I think he would agree-that over the past 12 years, while people have come into this country from overseas and successfully found jobs, entire communities have been trapped in poverty and in a cycle of deprivation and failure, which continues to blight the lives of far too many of our citizens.
	The frustrating thing is that we now know-I do not blame the current Home Secretary, as he was not in the job at the time-that Ministers did this deliberately. They took a conscious decision to open up our immigration to a large number of migrant workers; they took a conscious decision to lower the bar for investigations into whether people should or should not be allowed to stay in the UK; and they took a deliberate decision to try to cover up what they had done. It was a scandalous approach to public policy from a Government who have kept getting things wrong year after year and who have shown little understanding of the challenge that Britain faces.
	That is why the Government's approach to law and order has been so dominated by more and more legislation, and more and more erosion of the basic rights of our citizens. We see that in their latest attempt to deal with the controversial issue of the DNA database. The database is growing in size all the time, but the number of DNA-related detections is falling. The Government nevertheless persist in their desire to keep the DNA of innocent people on the database for six years, even when people have been suspected of the most minor of offences and have been charged with or found guilty of precisely nothing. Let me make it clear to the Home Secretary today that although there are things in the Policing and Crime Bill that we support, we will not allow it to go through in a rush before the election if it means leaving in place an unacceptable regime for our DNA database.

Keith Vaz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the database. I cannot understand why the DNA of innocent people is retained on it. Even if we accept the six-year limit, that is not what the European Court has ruled. Is he concerned about newspaper reports that people are being arrested merely because their DNA should be retained on a database that now has 750,000 innocent people's names on it? If those reports are correct, it is a very serious issue.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that matter of concern. When the Bill is debated, it will be dealt with straightforwardly by our bringing forward again proposals to extend the Scottish system across the UK. As he knows, that system would allow DNA to be retained for up to five years in the most serious cases, but would not allow it to be retained in minor cases. Were that law in place, we would not have seen such issues highlighted this week. I would welcome his support if we sought to push the Government to deliver such a DNA system before the election. If the Home Secretary wants his Bill to get through, let us set aside the Government's current proposals and work together on putting in place in the UK the Scottish system, which is supported by Members on both sides of the House, as soon as possible.

Bob Spink: I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman on this matter, but will he tell the House where he would draw the line between a less serious, and a more serious, case?

Chris Grayling: The Scottish system has an established definition, which I will not go through in detail as the hon. Gentleman can read it himself. Essentially, however, it treats investigations into serious crimes, such as a rape or murder, differently, allowing a dividing line to be drawn between serious cases in which retention of DNA for a period might be of benefit, and those minor cases, which are frequently highlighted in our media, where there is no requirement to retain the DNA of the individuals concerned.

Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that 56 non-police bodies in this country have access to the DNA database? Does he not see a common thread running between that and the access that local government now has to people's individual liberties following the introduction, and misuse of, the anti-terrorism legislation?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. The Gracious Speech should include measures to end the mission creep that has existed under this Government in the area of civil liberties, whereby powers introduced for necessary reasons of national security are used for purposes that have no relation to that whatever. The Government have allowed mission creep in far too many areas, and it must be reined back. I am disappointed that they are not taking such steps, and if we are elected next spring we will certainly do so.
	I wish the Government would understand that more law does not mean more order. If one introduces hundreds of new offences in endless criminal justice Bills, one merely swamps police in yet more new bureaucracy. When will the Government realise that their constant belief that we need more top-down solutions is plain wrong? The country needs a fresh start and a fresh approach, particularly to the blight of antisocial behaviour that has characterised Labour's years in government, and to which their response remains woefully inadequate. We need an instant response that does not let offenders get away with antisocial behaviour time and again, leaving them with a clear sense that the system has no teeth. It takes months to put in place an antisocial behaviour order: by the time the ASBO mechanism kicks in, they have offended multiple times. The system sends the message that if they do something wrong, nothing happens to them.
	We need to put an end to the caution culture that allows people who commit serious acts of violence against strangers to get away with a legal slap on the wrist, and all because the bureaucracy that the Government have put in place makes that easier than spending days doing the paperwork necessary for a prosecution. It is time to stop the late-night drinking culture that the Government deliberately fostered, leaving town centres swamped by disorder at the weekends and the police stretched into an ever thinner blue line.
	It is also time to accelerate the Government's tentative steps to cut down bureaucracy. I applaud some of what has been done in recent months, and I applaud the stop-and-search measures in the Bill, especially as we proposed them in the first place. I am glad that the Government have come to agree with us.
	The Government's automatic early release scheme must also go. Letting prisoners out after serving a minority of their sentence, with no regard whatever to their standards of behaviour, just tells those offenders that they can get away with it. It is another example of the mismatch between the Labour party's rhetoric in opposition and actions in government.
	I looked earlier at one of the speeches made by the Justice Secretary in a debate on the Queen's Speech a few months before the 1997 election. He said:
	"We now have the bizarre situation where, according to figures that I gave in my paper, the sentence length for repeat house burglars remains the same-at 15 months- whether for a first, second or third conviction." -[ Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 352.]
	A burglar in Britain today is unlikely to get 15 months for a first conviction; he is likely to get off, be released and not go to jail at all. That is what has happened after 12 years of Labour Government. The system is not tough, as they promised, but more and more lax, sending all the wrong messages and saying to too many offenders that they can just get away with it.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend also acknowledge that even were the maximum 15-month sentence applied, the reality is that someone so sentenced would probably only serve about five months in prison?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.  [Interruption.] More to the point, does the Home Secretary not understand that the automatic early- release scheme-he was saying from a sedentary position that it is only 18 days-gives an offender a sense that they have bucked the system. If they get out early automatically, with no relation to how they have behaved in prison, it says to them that the system does not have the teeth they thought it might have, and they can just get away with it.
	We also need thoughtful and real social reform finally to get to grips with the causes of crime-real welfare reform, not the failure of the new deal and the tentative approaches to change that have followed our radical blueprint for a new kind of welfare state. We will hear more about that later from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). We need the kind of innovative changes in our education system and in the health visitor profession that were set out in the debate last Thursday by my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). We need a much smarter approach to the rehabilitation of prisoners, which is part of our prison reform and welfare proposals.
	We also need much more radical changes on DNA and identity cards than this Government have been willing to countenance. That means dealing with the DNA database issue, and scrapping the now voluntary ID cards scheme altogether. I am interested to know whether Ministers have their ID cards with them today-[Hon. Members: "Full house."] Oh, very impressive. The Immigration Minister did not have his when we both appeared on "Question Time" last week.
	We also need a Government who will finally get to grips with the job of controlling our borders. That involves imposing an annual cap on the number of people coming to live and work in the UK-that is part, but an important part, of the picture.

Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a matter not just of people coming here to work, but of people coming here to work who then become citizens? That is what is growing our population.

Chris Grayling: That is certainly the case, and the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the press investigation at the weekend into the scandalous situation of those institutions that provide certification on English language capabilities for those applying for nationality. The fact that that has been taking place under the nose of the Home Office is a big failing, and I hope that the Home Secretary will tell the House how he is dealing with the problem. Having people securing citizenship on a false prospectus is utterly unacceptable.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead is right that the issue is not just people coming to the country to live and work; it is also a matter of introducing tighter restrictions on spouse visas, and tightening up the student visa system. However, I have profound doubts about the Government's current proposals, which would result in the closure not just of rogue colleges, which we all want to see disappear, but of legitimate businesses up and down the country, which we would not want to see closed. I urge the Government to take care to ensure that those proposals do not have unintended consequences.
	We also need real action to tackle illegal immigration, with a proper, dedicated border police force to tackle the problem, and particularly to get to grips with the evil networks of people traffickers and smugglers.

Frank Field: The Leader of the Opposition has said, although not in this House, that he would hope, as Prime Minister, to reduce immigration to 50,000 a year. Will the Opposition please give that commitment in the House?

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman has heard that commitment on many occasions. I strongly believe that we need to bring immigration down to the level that we saw in the first part of the 1990s-I would not pick an exact number, but he knows that we are talking in the region of tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. That is a substantial reduction, and is a necessary part of a wise and sensible immigration policy-not a closed-door policy, because we are an international trading nation and cannot afford to close the shutters altogether. However, we must have proper controls for the future that relate to the needs of our society, the pressure on our services and the nature of Britain today.

Anthony Steen: I welcomed my hon. Friend's reference to people-trafficking. Does he agree that, although the Government have a good record in that regard and have done a great deal, we could do more? In particular, has he considered the idea of a rapporteur in the Home Office to provide a focus on the issue? Has he also considered giving people who come here to work Gastarbeiter status, which would mean their working for a contracted period and then returning home?

Chris Grayling: I think that the job of tackling human trafficking and improving the quality of our work in combating the traffickers would be done best by the proposed border police force. I think that that would enable the law enforcement world to focus on an issue that desperately needs to be dealt with even more effectively than it has been so far. No Government do everything badly, and I accept that some good work has been done over the years, but we all recognise that there is more to be done, and I think that a border police force could step up our work.
	As for my hon. Friend's second point, the big issue confronting us is the requirement for people who come and work here to leave when their time has expired. If they are granted a three-year visa, they must leave after three years. If I have one big criticism of what the Government have done over the past decade, it is that they have failed to ensure that that happens.

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Does he agree that the issue of immigration needs to be addressed sensitively and carefully? Is it not highly regrettable that when Conservative Members have sought to engage in a proper debate we have been accused of racism, and has not that charge against us directly led to the growth of the far right? Should not the Government learn that engaging in a constructive debate might be more sensible, and to the greater good of the country, than levelling their usual charges against us?

Chris Grayling: I think it extremely important for any of us who debate these matters to do so with great sensitivity. It is always very unfortunate when, for example, the phrase "dog whistle" is used. The reality is that the debate is not about race or ethnic background, but about the country's resources, the services that we have, and the pressures on housing and on school and hospital places. It has nothing to do with race in a multicultural society; it is all about the pressures on the infrastructure of the country, and that is where we should centre it.

Phyllis Starkey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, which I chair, produced a report about a year ago on precisely the subject that we are discussing: community cohesion and migration. I agree with him about the need to ensure that when there are pressures on public services, the financial benefit to the country of immigration should be reallocated to the areas that bear the pressure. Does he accept, however, that part of the problem is that constant harping on numbers, and numbers alone, tends to suggest that the presence of any extra people is detrimental, and prevents the subtle, measured debate in which-as was pointed out by the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara)-we ought to be involved?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady must have misheard what I said a moment ago. I said very clearly that we should not close our doors, that we are an international trading nation, and that there will be a need for people to come in and out of the country. The issue is not about an absolute number at any particular point in history. The issue is about ensuring that we protect the ability of our public services to deal with the demands made of them, and that we are able to meet housing infrastructure needs. Inevitably, immigration policy needs to be shaped by that as well as by the needs of business, and the need of our domestic British population to find jobs and obtain the right skills.
	I commend the Government on the fact that, during difficult times for our labour market, we are not allowing any tier 3 people into the country. That is the right policy, and we have supported it from the start. However, what smart immigration policy should seek to achieve is a sensible balance between economic needs and pressures on public services.

Keith Vaz: This is, in a sense, a false debate. We cannot prevent people from the European Union from coming into this country, and there can be no limit to their number. The trouble with the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others is that they contradict our obligations to the EU. Those people have an absolute right to come here, and we are talking about an uncontrolled number. They can come and work here just as British citizens can go to any other European country and work there.

Chris Grayling: I have two responses to that intervention. First, I think that it was a great mistake for the Government not to introduce transition controls when the countries of eastern Europe joined the EU five years ago-a great mistake that should not have been made. Secondly, we all hope that as those countries continue to bed into the European Union, living standards will rise across Europe and the migration flows that we have seen in recent years will balance themselves. I am confident that we are already seeing flows of people who have come to this country returning to the countries from which they came, and I am not convinced as others may be that this is still a long-term problem. Nevertheless, we should have had transition controls at the start.
	The Gracious Speech offers us virtually none of the things that the country needs in order to deal with the challenges that we face, and the bits that it does offer have been lifted from Opposition policy documents. I must say that it is nice to know that when a Government are as weak as this Government, Opposition politicians can set the agenda; but what the country needs is not a Government who copy their opponents because they have no ideas left, but a fresh start, a fresh sense of direction, and a clear strategy for our country. This is a Government who have nothing left to offer.
	Let me end by offering back to the Government some wise words from one of our most prominent public figures:
	"The first duty of any Government is to secure the safety of their citizens and their communities. On that, the present Administration have failed. They have lost not only the plot on law and order, but the confidence of the British people. The Government are profoundly out of touch with people's feelings and anxieties. They lack a proper understanding of the causes of crime, and they have no coherent strategy or vision for dealing with the epidemic of crime and disorder that now scars the nation."-[ Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 359.]
	Those words were spoken by the current Justice Secretary 13 years ago. Never have his words proved more correct than they have today.

Alan Johnson: I welcome the opportunity to debate the proposals in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. I apologise in advance for not being able to be present for the winding-up speeches.
	The Crime and Security Bill includes measures to tackle youth crime and antisocial behaviour. It will give greater protection to victims of crime, particularly women and girls. It will prevent wheel-clamping businesses from imposing exorbitant fines, it will cut down police bureaucracy, and it will establish a new legal framework for the retention of DNA records.
	Although the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) did not actually say the words, he returned again to the "broken Britain" theme that has been his mantra for some time. However, he now seems to have married that-"married" being the operative word, or so it will seem to those who have read  The Sunday  Times-to one of the Conservative Party's greatest hits: "back to basics". He wants to convince more couples that they should marry; that, he believes, is essential to solving the social problems to which he has referred. But how would he do that? How is a 21st-century population to be tempted, cajoled or enticed into abandoning their wicked cohabitation in order to get spliced? It is suggested that all official forms must state whether a couple are married or not. That is brilliant, and probably infallible. It will go with the other measures that the hon. Gentleman has announced, such as cutting police numbers this year, abandoning police authorities, and undermining the operational authority of chief constables. That, in the words of the Conservative amendment, is what he believes will
	"offer answers to the growing social challenges facing the United Kingdom".

David Davies: I do not understand the Secretary of State's confusion. Official forms nowadays seem to ask for all sorts of information. They ask whether people are gay, straight, transgender-whatever that is-black, Asian, Chinese or something else. Why should they not ask whether people are married? Surely that is about the only bit of information that the Government are missing nowadays.

Alan Johnson: We have heard the views of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell reiterated in the form of a major policy announcement from the Opposition Benches. We can see what this country would have to look forward to under a Conservative Administration: an age of austerity, with foxhunting reintroduced for our recreation, and with marriage- [Interruption.] Yes, foxhunting and marriage. I am beginning to think the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell might be an undercover agent planted on the Opposition Benches-perhaps by Lord Mandelson-to disrupt and undermine the Conservative party. We all admired his independence when he went straight on to live television and announced how wrong his party was to employ General Dannatt as a defence adviser, but what if that was not another gaffe? What if the hon. Gentleman simply broke cover by forgetting in the heat of the moment what he was supposed to be doing?
	Let me remind the House of the response of the Conservative leader-in-waiting, my cousin Boris, to this broken Britain mantra. He said:
	"Someone the other day"-
	he was referring here to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell-
	"compared London with Baltimore; absolute nonsense."
	He also said on a separate occasion:
	"If you believe the politicians"-
	he is referring here not to us on the Labour Benches, but to the Conservatives, and the hon. Gentleman in particular-
	"we have a broken society, in which the courage and morals of young people have been sapped by welfarism and political correctness...you can see what piffle that is."
	That is what my cousin Boris Johnson says, and I agree.

Chris Grayling: Will the Home Secretary tell the House what he thinks about recent disturbing reports that we are now seeing an increasing number of inter-gang punishment shootings in London, with young people being shot in the legs in gang conflicts to make an inter-gang point? What is his reaction to that? What does he think has caused it, and what does he think we should do about it?

Alan Johnson: I shall come on to that, because specific measures in the Queen's Speech are of relevance to this issue, but first let me mention what I am sure must have been another attempt by the hon. Gentleman to undermine his own side. He has talked about "The Wire" and suggested that Britain, and especially London and Manchester, were becoming like the society depicted in that show.  The  Baltimore Sun reporter, Justin Fenton, says, however, that British
	"police stations could offer a view of the future of American policing."
	He also believes that the DNA sampling used in Britain is light years ahead of that in the USA, while saying that Britain's closed circuit television system can track a homicide suspect in real time and protect civil liberties, as it can prove the police wrong if they lie or abuse a suspect. He also says that Baltimore's drug problem could be reduced if the city adopted the British drug testing and counselling services used on all offenders on arrest. In relation to the broken Britain mantra, he says that he was warned about Brixton, but that he found it was being transformed into a nice area. He spoke to people who lived there, who said that it was nice and they liked living there, and he did not get the same sense that he got in Baltimore.
	On the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman mentions, Justin Fenton went to see the brilliant Trident operation against gun crime that is run by the police in London. He said that they had 25 detectives on one case, whereas in Baltimore it is more like two per case. The resources are impressive, he said.
	I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a very important debate-he has engaged in it-about knife and gun crime. It is a crucial debate for the House, but his making spurious comparisons with Baltimore adds nothing to it, and that is made even worse by his using the cheap "I'm au fait with popular culture" approach of attaching his argument to a popular television programme.

Chris Grayling: One development seen in North American cities in recent times is the involvement of children as young as 10 and 11 in running drugs. That is now becoming a feature of some estates in the UK. Why does the Home Secretary think that that is happening? What are the causes, and what does he think we can do about it?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should not denigrate what is happening in Manchester and London and compare it in this way, exaggerate it and use that kind of hyperbole. Of course we have some issues in this country. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the murder rate, and the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) about the British crime survey was right, because someone cannot be surveyed if they are dead. The murder rate is 1.4 per 100,000. That puts us 46th in the world, below Finland, Portugal and Iceland. It is the lowest rate we have had for many years.
	I believe that this broken Britain mantra is actually designed to help us, however, because it reminds the British public what life was like in the '80s and '90s- [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell began his speech by saying that we had been in power for 12 years-soon to be 13 years-and that that was the time to see what a Government had done. There was spiralling crime in the '80s and '90s, and more than 3 million unemployed. There were 24-hour trolley waits in accident and emergency, people waiting years for a simple cataract operation, single parents stigmatised, the gay and lesbian community offended by section 28, mortgage repossessions, poverty pay-when we introduced the minimum wage, we found that a quarter of a million people were on £1.50 an hour-and appalling educational issues. I ask any Conservative Member to tell me what was the level of attainment of five good GCSEs-at A* to C-in inner London, where we are now, in 1997, after 18 years of Tory rule? Does anyone wish to contribute a figure?

John Baron: rose-

Alan Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman going to tell me?

John Baron: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, but I suggest to him that my constituents are more interested in the future than the past. What is of particular interest to them is that, of the 52,000 prisoners who have been released early over the past few years, 10,000 have been violent offenders, and also that more than 1,000 offences have been committed by prisoners who have been released early. What message does the Home Secretary think that sends to the law-abiding majority, other than that our prisons are overcrowded?

Alan Johnson: The message is-

Stephen Hepburn: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Alan Johnson: I will do so when I have said something to give way on.
	The message is that there are more criminals behind bars now, serving longer sentences. The issue regarding foreign national prisoners began earlier and has carried on. It has been an inherent problem over many years that needed to be tackled. Our record after 12 or 13 years is an extraordinary improvement on the 18 years of the previous Government.

Stephen Hepburn: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. May I remind Opposition Members of the great statement that Nye Bevan made many years ago: we do not need to look in the crystal ball when we read the book? That is all we need to remind the British people of in respect of the Tories.

Alan Johnson: I believe that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is trying to help us achieve that.
	There were 2.9 million pensioners in abject poverty-that is £69 a week with income support-and in the previous 18 years they had one real-terms increase in pensions, and that was the year the Conservatives put VAT on fuel.

Christopher Huhne: The Home Secretary has not mentioned one crucial factor about the 1980s: output began rising from the end of 1980, but the recovery was so slow that unemployment did not fall until 1986. Can he predict what the effect on crime would be if that were to happen again under a Conservative Government?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are in recession at present, as we were in the 1980s and 1990s-although this is a global recession whereas the previous one was made in Britain-and we find from looking at the record of the '80s and '90s that there was a huge spiral in the crime rate because of precisely the reasons the hon. Gentleman mentions. In particular, there was a 60 per cent. increase in domestic violence at that time, and domestic violence is an important aspect of my remarks.
	The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentions welfare dependency, and he spoke about his party's determination to get people off incapacity benefit, but this country had about 700,000 people on incapacity benefit until the '80s and '90s when the Conservative Government deliberately and persistently shepherded working people out of the coal mines, the steel works and the shipyards, and on to a life of welfare dependency in order to suppress the unemployment statistics. By the time they left office, the number was 2.6 million, so if Britain was ever broken, it was in those years, when one in four British children were being raised in poverty-the worst record of any European country.

Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend talks about the Government's good record on getting people into work. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recently provoked headlines such as "Benefits Britain" and "Shameless Labour" when she claimed that the number of households receiving more than £15,000 in benefits had doubled. That might be true, but when one examines the statistics on households with a member working, one finds that the numbers have not increased at all. The reason for the doubling is because the Labour Government have been far more generous to pensioners and it is they, particularly those who are in greater need, who have benefited from the increase in benefits, not those of working age.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which leads me to mention the fact that 1 million of those pensioners who were in abject poverty at the end of the 1990s have now been taken out of poverty. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and her predecessors, a combination of pension credit, the winter fuel allowance, good increases in the state pension, free travel and free TV licences has transformed the lives of those pensioners, many of whom were women in their 80s who did not qualify even for the basic state pension because they had not paid enough national insurance contributions.
	Ten years ago, this Government made an historic commitment to eradicate child poverty. Was it ambitious? Yes. Was it foolhardy? No. It was a demonstration of how seriously our country took this issue and how determined we were to resolve it. Since 1997, more than 1.7 million children have been lifted out of absolute poverty.

Theresa May: As the Secretary of State has raised the issue of child poverty, perhaps he would like to tell the House whether this Government are going to reach their target of halving child poverty by 2010. If they were to stay in government, would they be eradicating child poverty by 2020?

Alan Johnson: We are still working towards halving child poverty by 2010. That will be difficult, because there has been a global recession -[Interruption.] We are still hopeful. The right hon. Lady's second question was about reaching the 2020 target, and that is exactly what our Bill is designed to do. Everyone in this House might believe that this is one of the most important objectives that we can set. All the measures necessary will of course be put in place, but we need to send a signal out about how seriously we take the issue.
	I was discussing the number of people who have been lifted out of poverty. As I said, since 1997, more than 1.7 million children have been lifted out of absolute poverty, and 500,000 have been lifted out of relative poverty-that is very difficult to do when the living standards of the whole country are rising. However, we need further, decisive action to meet our goal to eradicate child poverty altogether by 2020. That is not an ambition that we intend to abandon during the global downturn; indeed, the recession makes the objective more important, not less.

John Mason: On abolishing child poverty by 2020, a lot of outside bodies, such as the Child Poverty Action Group, have said that we need to put in serious extra resources, which did not appear in last year's Budget. Is the Secretary of State indicating that his Government will put in more resources specifically for this?

Alan Johnson: All the measures we are taking in difficult economic circumstances will be important, be they on child tax credit, working tax credit or continuing to increase the national minimum wage. I should point out that on a quiet Friday, eight Conservative Members-to be fair, they were not Front Benchers-tried to move a resolution to freeze the national minimum wage. The measures that we will introduce on housing benefit will also make an enormous contribution.
	The Gracious Speech confirmed that we will introduce the Child Poverty Bill in the current Session. It has already been widely debated in this Chamber and there is support from both sides of this House for further action to reduce substantially relative, absolute and persistent child poverty, as well as material deprivation. The Bill will legally bind the Government to taking the sustained action necessary to meet the 2020 target, whether that is by increasing parental employment and skills, providing financial support or improving health, housing, education and social services. It also commits us to report annually to Parliament on progress on the 2020 target. The Bill will create a child poverty commission to advise the Government on policy development and will place a clear duty on local authorities both to reduce poverty locally and mitigate its effects.
	Under the provisions of our Bill, our focus on supporting the poorest families in the country will not merely continue-it will intensify. We are already creating up to 95,000 new jobs from the £1 billion future jobs fund; the first jobs became available in October and there will be thousands more in the coming months. Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week further steps to tackle youth unemployment in order to avoid at all costs what happened in the 1980s, when hundreds of thousands of young people were left to drift into long-term unemployment.
	Let me now turn to the Crime and Security Bill, which comes at a time when there are more police officers than ever before, with substantial support from police community support officers, which did not previously exist, and with more money than ever available to spend on tackling crime. This country's police and support staff have presided over the first sustained reduction in crime in almost 100 years, with violent crime having decreased by 41 per cent. since 1997 and public confidence increasing. However, there remain communities across the country in which the fear of crime is endemic and antisocial behaviour is far too prevalent. We should not portray this issue as if it is some kind of battle between the generations, not least because 60 per cent. of antisocial behaviour orders are handed to adults and because, as we saw with the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington, teenagers are as likely to be the victims as the perpetrators. The vast majority of young people are law-abiding and hard working, and make a positive contribution to their communities. However, some of them drift into antisocial behaviour and gang-related crime.

Keith Vaz: Of course I agree with the Home Secretary that great progress has been made. As he knows, the Bill deals with the DNA database. Is he as concerned as I am about reports that a number of young people are being arrested just so they can be put on the DNA database, that the DNA profiles of about three quarters of all young black men are on the database, and that 750,000 innocent people are still on it? I know that the Government have said that these names should be cleared within six years, but is he prepared, during the passage of the Bill, to engage with Members on both sides of the House to try to ensure that that number is reduced?

Alan Johnson: I welcome the debate on this matter, which was why we agreed to pull these clauses from the Policing and Crime Bill and include them in the Crime and Security Bill. As I said in an article in this morning's edition of  The Guardian, this is a sensitive matter that needs to be carefully debated. I would be concerned about yesterday's reports if I felt that they were accurate. I understand that they have come from one retired police officer who has said that he thought that the police were deliberately arresting people-we should not forget that people get on the DNA database by being arrested for a recordable crime, for which they can serve a prison sentence-merely to get them on the DNA database. I think more highly of our police service than that, and certainly the response from the Association of Chief Police Officers and others in the police service expressed the fact that they were extremely offended by that suggestion. My right hon. Friend will be conducting a review of the issue with the distinguished Committee that he chairs, but I do not believe that this report reflects common practice in the police.

Stephen Hepburn: Has the Secretary of State closed his mind altogether to the possibility of having everybody on a DNA database? The problem seems to be people getting off, and people complaining about those people getting off and not getting locked up. Has he closed his mind to that fact?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend might wish to table his proposal as an amendment as the Bill goes through the House. I understand that he makes a very serious point, which relates to the issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) raised about a disproportionate representation from the black and minority ethnic community. I believe that that is a problem for the criminal justice system as a whole, not just the DNA database, although the DNA database reflects it. The way round it would be to have a DNA database containing everyone's DNA, but I am not proposing that. I have not even opened my mind to that, never mind closed it again.

Chris Grayling: May I take the Secretary of State back to the issue of young black men on the DNA database? I am sure that since yesterday's reports he will have asked for information about the current situation, so will he share it with the House? Is it correct that the proportion of young black men who are on the database is as was stated? If so, what proportion of those on the database have actually been convicted of an offence?

Alan Johnson: The information that I have received is that last year the proportion of young black men on the DNA database was about 9 per cent. and the proportion of the Asian population on the database was 5 per cent. The figure for the Asian population is about proportionate to the population as a whole, but the 9 per cent. is not. The 9 per cent. figure for those on the database is much higher than the 2 per cent. represented in the population as a whole. That is an issue, but we knew that it was an issue before yesterday's reports.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Alan Johnson: I am not even on to the DNA database yet-I shall be coming to that in a second-but I shall take one further intervention.

Shailesh Vara: The Home Secretary has just referred to black and Asian DNA figures. Is there any way of determining which groups that means within the Asian community, such as Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and so on? In the black community, there is a huge difference between those from Africa and those from the Caribbean countries. Is it possible to be a bit more precise rather than being so generic? It is a bit like referring to the figures for Europeans in the same way.

Alan Johnson: It probably is possible to be more precise, but that is the information that I was given yesterday. There is a paucity of good research on this and perhaps we need to do substantially more to ensure that we have more accurate figures. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in these issues, so I shall look to see whether there are any further figures on the breakdown and furnish him with that information.
	I was talking about the groundbreaking powers in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which, for the first time, provided the police, local authorities and other agencies with civil powers to deal with behaviour that, although it was not yet criminal, was a major source of insecurity and unhappiness. Along with the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, that has provided police and local authorities with the powers that they need to tackle antisocial behaviour effectively, including acceptable behaviour contracts, antisocial behaviour orders and powers to close crack houses and evict irresponsible tenants.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has demonstrated yet again his profound misunderstanding of the powers that are now available to tackle such problems. In a newspaper interview last week, he said that there should be informal solutions that the police could use-there are. He said that ASBOs should be more of a last resort if nothing else is working-that is precisely what they are. He said that the police should be allowed to impose grounding orders and instant community penalties-they can. Indeed, some groundbreaking work is being done in the west midlands in that respect, although all police authorities have that power.
	I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion-he did not mention this point in his speech, but it was yet again included in his  Daily Mail interview-that the police should be able to confiscate mobile phones and iPods from 13-year-olds. He said that that would be a simple, non-criminalising intervention. So, a police officer could simply take a child's property-presumably with no authority, no consultation and no reference to the parents, otherwise it will hardly be simple and quick, and with very little, if any, documentation-as an arbitrary punishment for a minor offence. That is the kind of simple, non-criminalising police intervention that is unlikely to bolster confidence in the police among the young. I suggest that it would also be unlikely to please parents, although I suppose that they could always fill in a form of complaint provided that there is something on there to say whether they were married or not.
	Parenting orders have been of immense importance when parents of children who are persistent offenders are either incapable of stopping their child's bad behaviour or remain stubbornly ignorant of it. The Bill will further address that by ensuring that courts consider a child's parenting need before they place an ASBO on 10 to 15-year-olds. At that point, a voluntary parenting contract or a parenting order could be imposed. If that ASBO was subsequently breached, a parenting order would automatically be triggered, rather than being discretionary.

Charles Walker: Should it not be the case that when a young person commits a criminal act, the parents should be financially liable for the cost of reparation?

Alan Johnson: In some cases, the parents are asked, as part of the informal arrangements, to get their child to go and do something to restore what happened, which they would have to pay for. That is very much what is happening in the west midlands at the moment. In all cases, parenting orders are not a soft option. They are a contract between parents and the authorities-not just the police, but local authorities, housing authorities and social services-to end the kind of behaviour that sometimes leads to children being disruptive. Whether there is a financial or a physical obligation to change, that certainly requires the parents to do something and not simply to put up with their child's behaviour.

Phyllis Starkey: Although it is interesting to suggest that parents should be made financially liable, is it not important to avoid what I might call the Bullingdon club syndrome, whereby rich students commit a lot of damage in a restaurant for fun, financially recompense the restaurateur as they leave and think that that just wipes out the problem?

Alan Johnson: If antisocial behaviour orders had been around at the time, I am sure that one would have been served on the former Member for Henley and his colleagues.

Chris Grayling: Will the Home Secretary clarify? In the event of an informal solution being applied-for example, if a police officer agrees with a family and a young person that that young person should go and do some community work the following weekend-what is the legal consequence if that work is not completed?

Alan Johnson: As it is an informal civil order, it does not even get into the realms of bureaucracy and, as it is the kind of thing that the hon. Gentleman rightly said should be available and that is available, there would not be much of a consequence. That is the same with all informal measures. The problem is that taking an iPod away from someone goes beyond the idea of restorative justice and is much more serious and threatening.
	The conditions that the courts impose on parents will vary in each case. They might require the parent to make sure that their child is at home and supervised during certain hours at night, or they might ban the child from associating with other known troublemakers. The parent might be instructed to seek treatment for drug or alcohol problems, or attend intensive parenting classes. More usually, there will be a combination of such conditions.
	Let me turn to the subject of gang injunctions. Although the number of young people involved in gang violence is small, the impact that those young people have on the communities in which they live can be extreme-both in terms of crime and antisocial behaviour and in terms of generating a fear of crime. The Policing and Crime Act 2009 gives police and local authorities new powers to issue injunctions to prevent gang violence. The Crime and Security Bill will extend such injunctions to 14 to 17-year-olds. They can be used to prevent the young person from going to a particular place, from meeting other gang members or from using dogs as weapons to intimidate the community. In addition, they can be used to direct young people towards targeted support that will help to address any underlying issues that might be prevalent.
	The good news about domestic violence is that the British crime survey shows a 65 per cent. reduction in it since 1995, and the conviction rate is rising. The bad news is that it still accounts for 14 per cent. of all violent crime and its impact continues to ruin the lives of women and children. One woman every week is murdered by a current or former partner. It used to be two or three, but the situation is still unacceptable.
	Today, the violence against women and girls strategy was published. It sets out how we will intensify our efforts to prevent domestic and sexual violence, in particular by challenging attitudes that condone such behaviour and by providing greater support to victims. The strategy goes wider than domestic violence, but Chief Constable Brian Moore was asked to examine that specific issue from a policing perspective, and one of his recommendations relates to the introduction of domestic violence protection orders. They would give the police powers to ban the attacker from the home of their victim for up to 28 days to provide vital respite for victims to consider their options. Crucially, that means that it would not be the victim who would be forced to leave her home, as is too often the case at the moment, but the perpetrator.
	We have included that proposal in the Crime and Security Bill, which will also make it an offence not to keep air weapons under lock and key and well out of the reach of children. Introducing a compulsory licensing scheme for wheel clampers will also allow us to set limits on the fines that they can impose, and we will outlaw rogue operators who extort vast sums from drivers and bring the entire sector into disrepute. Finally, this Bill proposes a new framework for the retention of DNA records.

Paul Holmes: I want to take the Home Secretary back to the earlier intervention by one his colleagues. The Government have created the largest DNA database in the world, with 1 million innocent people included on it. Is not the logic of that that the Government should go for a universal database that covers everybody? Surely that is the logic of their position.

Alan Johnson: No, it is not, as the database includes people who have committed a crime or been arrested but not charged. The European Court did not say that it was wrong to include on the database people who had been arrested but not charged, but that we should not keep that information for an indeterminate time. That was its decision, and I believe that the changes that we are proposing in the Bill will meet the points made by the European Court.

David Burrowes: The Home Secretary has spoken about domestic violence, gang crime and antisocial behaviour, but there has been no reference to drugs and alcohol. The right hon. Gentleman has taken off his glasses, but will he take off his rose-tinted glasses and recognise that we top the European league for the problematic use of drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines by young people? A total of £1.5 billion has been paid into the pot for drug treatment, enforcement and prevention, but what are the results?

Alan Johnson: In many ways, parenting orders get to the problems caused by antisocial behaviour. All hon. Members will know from their constituency experience that there are constant problems with some families. They can be caused by children, parents or people visiting the home, but there is usually a drug or alcohol problem at the heart of the behaviour that needs to be addressed.
	Drug use in this country is at the lowest level that it has ever been. Young people make up the most difficult group, but drug use among the young is down by 5 per cent. Progress has been made, although perhaps not enough, but the remarkable thing is the number of people-over a quarter of a million-who are receiving treatment for drug addiction. Making the drug intervention programme part of the criminal justice system has been the biggest and most important contributory factor in that.
	I have not mentioned drugs before because I have only a certain amount of time to deliver this speech and the Bill contains nothing specifically about drug legislation, but it is a very important issue.

Damian Green: I am genuinely not sure that the right hon. Gentleman meant it, but he said that drug use in this country is lower than it has ever been. Did he mean that?

Alan Johnson: Yes. The British crime survey puts it at 10.1 per cent. of the population, which is the lowest level since records began. I wish the hon. Gentleman would look at the statistics in the British crime survey occasionally, as they might explain some of the problems that arise in these debates.

Damian Green: But the lowest ever?

Alan Johnson: Since records began.

David Burrowes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Alan Johnson: I will, for one little millisecond.

David Burrowes: I am ever so grateful for the Home Secretary's generosity, but does he disagree with the report from the European Monitoring Centre For Drugs and Drug Addiction? It compared drug use in 28 countries in Europe and revealed that the UK has the highest proportion of cocaine use among adults, and among 15 and 16-year olds. That finding is supported by the UK Drug Policy Commission report, which says that we have the highest problem of drug use.

Alan Johnson: I do not disagree with that at all, but my point is that the level is the lowest since records began. I cannot argue that it is the lowest ever, given that no one recorded it before the previous Government introduced the legislation-

Damian Green: But you said that it was the lowest ever

Alan Johnson: No one knows what the level was before we started recording it. The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position, but he has been in the House long enough to know that a statistical argument is based on when those statistics began to be compiled.
	I was also asked about alcohol. The British crime survey was introduced under the previous Government and it is the most robust and accurate measure of crime. It shows that alcohol-fuelled crime is down by a third. The link with the Licensing Act 2003 is fictitious. There is, of course, a link between excessive drinking and violence, and I understand that it is a very important issue that we have still to address in full. One fifth of all violent crime takes place in or around pubs and clubs, and nearly half of that occurs between Friday evening and Monday morning.
	However, the problems are not caused by the Licensing Act. Only around 4 per cent. of premises have a 24-hour licence, and more than 80 per cent. of those are shops and hotels. The average closing time is just 21 minutes later than it was before the Act, and 56 per cent. of all licensed premises still close at 11 pm, compared with 68 per cent. under the old regime.
	The 2008 review of the Licensing Act 2003 found that, since the new legislation was introduced, serious violent crime at night was down by 5 per cent. and less serious wounding was down by 3 per cent. We can have a debate about alcohol, but we cannot say that the problems with alcohol-fuelled violence began with the 2003 Act.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary is right. The Home Affairs Committee report earlier this year did not lay the blame on the Licensing Act, but we did say that the cheap availability of alcohol in supermarkets results in people getting tanked up before they go out on a Saturday night and start buying alcohol in pubs and clubs. Will he therefore consider our recommendation for a floor price for supermarket alcohol sales?

Alan Johnson: Yes, we will consider that recommendation, and the report to which my right hon. Friend refers was a valuable contribution. That is why we asked Sheffield university to conduct the research into the problem. In my previous guise at the Department of Health, we commissioned further work to enable us to look at the issue. However, he knows that the Licensing Act 2003 has done many things to address alcohol abuse, including ending the voluntary code for industry and introducing a statutory code. I think that that will make an enormous contribution.

David Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alan Johnson: I shall give way once more, and then I am going to conclude.

David Chaytor: I am very grateful. The evidence shows that the cost to the NHS, let alone the criminal justice system, of excessive alcohol abuse is analogous to that of excessive tobacco consumption. What is the argument against introducing a ban on alcohol advertising, to follow the very successful ban on tobacco advertising?

Alan Johnson: We have looked at all the options and did consider that, but we live in a free society and the difference between alcohol and tobacco is that there is a level of alcohol consumption which, far from being detrimental to health, can be beneficial. It depends on where one draws the line.

Charles Walker: They said that about tobacco!

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman says, "You can say that about tobacco."

Charles Walker: That is what they used to say.

Alan Johnson: If they used to say that about tobacco, they do not do so any more. All eminent researchers into the matter say that it would not be possible even to start to go down the route of instituting a prohibition system such as existed in America, because alcohol is in a different category from tobacco when it comes to health effects.

Frank Field: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Alan Johnson: I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

Frank Field: The Home Secretary said earlier that he was going to give way for "a" last time, so perhaps this is "the" last time. Before he completes his remarks, will he find time to report the good news about the progress that the Government are making in breaking the link between coming to this country to work and automatically gaining British citizenship? That issue very much concerns our core voters.

Alan Johnson: I will, and this is my only opportunity to do so. People are very welcome to come to this country to study or work and to contribute to our culture and economy, but it is crucial to break the link that means that they can become British citizens if they stay here long enough. That has to end, and a points-based citizenship system, along the lines of the points-based immigration system, can ensure that being a citizen of this country means more than simply being here for a certain amount of time. That is a very important change, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and those other colleagues who have been pushing it for some time.
	The Bill proposes a new framework for the retention of DNA records. There can be no question, I hope, that the development of DNA fingerprinting by the British scientist Sir Alec Jeffreys has revolutionised the fight against crime. The retention of DNA records by the police has been critical in solving many high-profile and horrific crimes. It is unlikely that Mark Dixie, the murderer of Sally Anne Bowman, would ever have been found, had his DNA profile not been recorded following his arrest for involvement in a pub brawl from which he was released without charge. Take also the case of Abdul Azad. He was arrested for violent disorder at his Birmingham home in February 2005. He had a DNA sample taken and was released without charge. In July 2005, just five months later, a stranger rape occurred in Stafford, 25 miles away. There were no clues until the skin beneath the victim's fingernails was profiled and found to match Abdul Azad's DNA.
	This is an argument about statistics, civil liberties and good policing, but fundamentally it is an argument about people and their requirement for justice and the enormous deterrent effect of DNA profiling, as well it being such a valuable tool in solving crime. It is unlikely that Sean Hodgson, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering and raping Teresa de Simone in 1982, would have been cleared, had not DNA analysis completed in 2008 shown that he was not the killer, or that Michael Shirley, who spent 16 years in prison for the rape and murder of Linda Cook, would have been released in 2003. This is about protecting the innocent, as well as finding the guilty.
	Almost exactly a year ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that although holding the DNA records of those who were not convicted was justifiable under the European convention on human rights, it was unlawful to hold these records indefinitely. There followed an extensive period of consultation and deliberation. In determining what is proportionate, as the Bill seeks to do, we must be guided by the most recent scientific evidence, the professional opinion of the police, and the reasonable expectations of the public that they should be protected against crime, and that there should be justice for them and their families if that protection fails.
	These elements must be balanced against the understandable concerns of those who have never been convicted of any crime about the retention of their DNA profile. Although not required to by the European Court judgment, we took the decision that all DNA samples should be destroyed after six months, once they have been converted- [Interruption.] Six months. I wish Members on the Opposition Front Bench would listen more closely. The DNA sample-the swab-must be destroyed within six months. That was not a mandate from the European Court, but is something that we decided to do.
	That six months gives the chance to convert the sample into the 20 numbers that form the DNA profile.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) asks from a sedentary position, "So what?" Many people are concerned that some of their human tissue will be retained. All the arguments that we know in the House from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill raise very real concerns. It is important to stress that it is not the tissue, but the tissue converted into the 20 numbers that forms the DNA profile-and I say that once again, for the information of the Opposition Front-Bench team.
	The evidence that we have, reinforced by the responses to the public consultation, shows that there is a strong case for the retention of the DNA profiles of those who are arrested but not convicted, and that there is a link between arrest for a previous offence and future offending. It also shows that after six years, the probability of re-arrest for this group is no higher than for the rest of the population.  [Interruption.] Hon. Members ask what about Scotland. Scotland did not have the same information to hand when its decision to go for three years was taken, with the option of a further two years. I do not know what led to that decision. What I know is that a retention period of three years would leave a larger percentage of people with a higher hazard rate who would commit crime in the future than would a retention period of six years.
	The difference between us is not about people being innocent until proven guilty. I heard the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell saying that on the "Today" programme. Two Opposition parties propose keeping on the database people who are innocent until proven guilty. They propose that as well. The difference is that they say it should just be for serious crimes that they have been arrested but not charged for, as in Scotland, and not for any other crimes. The research shows that there is no difference in the probability of reoffending, whether a serious or non-serious crime was previously committed. The evidence that we have, reinforced by the responses to the public consultation, suggests that six years is the right period.
	Under the framework proposed by the Bill, the DNA profiles of all those convicted of crimes will be held indefinitely. That is not controversial. The Bill also gives the police the powers to take DNA samples from people who were convicted of a serious violent and sexual offence in the past, before DNA was routinely taken, and previous offenders who are returning from overseas. We believe that this will bring justice for victims and their families by solving more cold cases. Once again, I do not believe that that is controversial. It is supported on all sides of the House.
	However, the records of adults arrested but not convicted will be retained for six years, not 12 years as originally proposed, regardless of the seriousness of the crimes for which they were arrested. The records of under-18s convicted of serious crimes will be held indefinitely, but for those convicted of minor offences, if it is a first conviction, the record will be kept for five years. Only if it is a second conviction will that record be held indefinitely. It would be disproportionate if a young person who commits a minor offence, which they deeply regret, were to have that crime held against them for the rest of their lives.
	For under-18s who are arrested but not convicted, for both serious crimes and minor offences, their records will be retained for three years. For 16 and 17-year-olds entering the peak offending years, their records will be retained for six years.
	There is one exception to the six-year rule for adults who are arrested but not convicted. The House will be aware that national security investigations, including counter-terrorism cases, can go on for many years. In some cases investigations have lasted for as long as 25 years. Setting a six-year time frame in such cases would be potentially damaging for national security. The Bill will therefore allow the retention of DNA profiles beyond the six-year point in these exceptional cases. Fewer than 1,000 such records exist, and under the Bill's proposals, each case would be reviewed every two years.
	Although under current legislation those who seek to have their DNA profile removed from the database may apply to the chief constable to have their personal data removed, chief constables are under no obligation to fulfil such a request. The measures proposed by the Crime and Security Bill will place a legal duty on the chief constable to remove the DNA records in circumstances where the arrest was unlawful, the taking of the biometric data was unlawful, the arrest was based on mistaken identity or if there were other circumstances relating to the arrest or the alleged offender that would make it appropriate to destroy the material.
	I believe these proposals strike the right balance between the need to protect the public and the rights of the individual, while being informed by the best available evidence. The proposals in the Crime and Security Bill, along with action to tackle youth unemployment, and the legally binding commitment to eradicating child poverty, will help to make this country a safer and fairer place. I commend the Queen's Speech to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I do not wish to curtail the cut and thrust of debate in the Chamber by way of interventions, I remind hon. Members that the overall time for the debate is limited and there is a time limit on Back-Bench contributions. I am still optimistic that as many as possible will be able to make their contribution.

Christopher Huhne: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposals put forward in this year's Gracious Speech. My hon. Friends have already pointed out that the Loyal Address is little more than an opportunity for electioneering, and the Government have admitted as much themselves. Much of the legislation stands little, if any, chance of making it on to the statute book, and is heading inexorably towards the wash-up and a soapy consensus. That is not necessarily a bad thing at this stage of a Parliament, but we have seen it all before, too often.
	There is to be yet another criminal justice Bill-the 28th, on our count, since 1997-which throws together an essentially random selection of measures as diverse as the DNA database, about which we have just heard in some detail from the Home Secretary, domestic violence, gang injunctions, antisocial behaviour, wheel-clamping, mobile phones in prisons, and air weapons. This is legislation by grapeshot. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
	Astonishingly, the proposed Crime and Security Bill will amend an Act that received Royal Assent only 13 days ago. That is swift revision even by the Government's prolix standards. I do not know what the Bill team at the Home Office have been up to, but they are clearly working overtime. In all this helter-skelter activity, and with the Home Office displaying all the symptoms of attention deficit disorder, where is the strategy? What are the Government trying to do? Are Ministers merely indulging in inane activity, like a hamster on a treadmill? I see in this frenetic energy no guiding purpose and no sense of direction. Our criminal justice system is crying out for an approach based on the evidence of what works, yet, once again, we have a Bill that proclaims populist objectives, regardless, in many cases, of the evidence and bereft of strategy.
	The evidence suggests that prison should be for serious offenders and serial offences, not an everyday response to low-level thieving and other minor crime. Yet, looking at the big picture, we desperately need a shift from prison to other, more effective measures to stop reoffending. The reoffending rate for young men on their first prison sentence is 92 per cent. Prisons are just colleges of crime, where the young learn better the techniques that we would rather they did not learn at all.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, however, that all the young men in prison have already been through all those community and non-custodial sentences that he is referring to, and that none of them has worked, which is why they end up back in front of the courts and in prison? At least they are off the streets.

Christopher Huhne: I do not accept the hon. Member's point. In fact, in many cases, there is not an adequately graded response to criminal or antisocial behaviour, particularly among young people. I intend to return to that point later.
	Prisons are full of drug addicts, who should be treated elsewhere, and people with mental health problems whose circumstances are likely to be aggravated by their prison experience. Adopting a problem-centred approach to crime, in which we actually did what worked to cut crime, would do far more to prevent crime and to detect criminals so that they could be caught. That would provide a far greater deterrent than just being even tougher on the tiny minority of criminals whose case ends up in a court conviction. If we take into account the British crime survey figures and those for business crime, plus those for people under the age recorded by the BCS, probably only one in 100 cases ends up in a court conviction. People are therefore unlikely to be impressed by posturing on tougher punishments. In fact, so small is the probability of being caught that it would make precious little difference if we were to promise far tougher punishments.
	That is why we need a new approach, with a much greater emphasis on detection. We also need more prevention, involving easy measures such as improving outside lighting, alarms and window locks. We need more detection, to ensure that criminals face justice. The prevention aspect of that agenda alone provides the main reason why crime has fallen further and faster in Liberal Democrat-controlled council areas than in either Labour or Tory-controlled areas- [ Interruption. ] The Home Secretary laughs, but, given that his own city of Hull and many other major cities outside London are now under outright Liberal Democrat control, we are no longer making our point based on a small sample.

Alan Johnson: I apologise for laughing, but it was funny. One of the reasons why crime and disorder in Hull is really coming down as a result of the terrific efforts of the chief constable is the extra police who were put into the city centre by the previous Labour administration before the Lib Dems took over. All that the Lib Dems have done is take away is our free school meals service, which we very much want back. They have contributed nothing to the reduction in crime.

Christopher Huhne: I am astonished that the Home Secretary thinks that free school meals are relevant to crime figures. Let me give him a practical example of what I am saying. I have visited a number of Liberal Democrat councils-as no doubt he has; perhaps he should visit more-to see what work they are doing on the prevention agenda. Let us take Liverpool as an example. There, the Liberal Democrat council has installed alley gates, which have the enormous merit of preventing burglars from popping into backyards and stealing things from people's homes. I am not saying that alley gating is the only factor, but that, along with policing, has had a dramatic effect.
	Since its peak, crime in Liberal Democrat council areas has fallen by more than the national average, at 20 per cent. Before we get any chortling from Conservative Members, I should say that, on crime, Conservative areas have performed less well than the national average, with rates falling 16 per cent. since the peak. Let us look at violent crime: down 6 per cent. in Conservative areas, but down by more than twice as much-by 14 per cent.-in Liberal Democrat-council areas. We are talking not about small samples, but about quite substantial areas, and what matters is what works. We need a big, strategic shift from prison to policing and probation, because catching more people who commit crime is a greater deterrent than more harshly punishing the few whom we do catch.

Paul Holmes: My hon. Friend mentions policies that are based on the evidence of what works, and probation. Does he agree, therefore, that the Government's embarkation on cuts in probation funding and staff is folly, when, for example, the intensive alternative to custody that Derbyshire probation service is piloting costs one fifth of a custodial sentence and is more successful at preventing reoffending?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful for that intervention, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the pilot in Derbyshire, where the results are encouraging and, indeed, the reoffending rates are as he describes. However, I agree with the Home Secretary that it is important to have more police on the front line-if only the Government would take his apparent advice. We need a further 10,000 police officers on the front line. We are still under-policed when compared with other leading industrial democracies, but we need better policing, too.
	One of the biggest disappointments of the Gracious Speech and the Crime and Security Bill is that they represent yet another missed opportunity by the Government to show some real commitment to police reform. The National Policing Improvement Agency should be given a wider remit so that it can commission research into any measures that cut crime, including not only better policing methods, but measures outside the police. Chief officers should have greater discretion to manage their force, decide key staff changes and reward specialism.
	The police contract-lifetime employment, now for 35 years, a single point of entry and pay linked to seniority rather than to talent or effort-should be urgently reviewed, as successive reports from inspectors of constabulary have pointed out. It was right to make a bonfire of the central targets and controls that have been introduced since 2002, but it was surely wrong for the Home Office not to cut back on the data requirements and red tape that went with that central control regime. It was surely wrong, too, to fail to put in place stronger local governance arrangements to pick up where Whitehall's meddling left off.
	Chief officers must be responsible for operations, they must be independent and they must be operationally independent, but strategy and priorities must be determined by strong and representative police authorities that speak for their people throughout the force area. There should be better consultation at local, basic command unit or operational command unit levels, because that matters; but the real locus of accountability is where the money is decided, at police authority level, and only more powerful accountability will drive up policing standards towards the best.
	Detection rates, even for violent crime, vary from 34 per cent. in the worst performing force, the Metropolitan police, to 67 per cent. in the best performing force in England and Wales. That is not an acceptable variation, and the public should not accept it. However, the Government have run away from the debate at the first whiff of gunshot from their own, Labour, councillors, and the official Opposition have proposed a system that makes strong men blench. One elected sheriff, in a multi-ethnic and diverse area such as Greater Manchester or the west midlands, would be a disaster, as the sheriff would be elected while ignoring the vast majority of his or her voters. That way lies insensitive policing, random stop-and-search and the Brixton riots. Without such reform, the measures heralded in the Gracious Speech are just tinkering around the edges. We need stronger local governance, but it has to be right and it has to be representative.
	Even where the Government are faced inexorably with the need for reform because of court judgments, they manage to botch their response. Let us look at the DNA database. Of course, DNA should be used in criminal investigations. No one denies that; and it will go on being used. Forensics should be better supported than Ministers' reorganisation of the service suggests. However, the Government's proposal-a six-year period holding DNA even of innocent people-is still an extraordinary response to the European Court of Human Rights and to the age-old principle of British justice that we are innocent until proven guilty. Just under 1 million innocent people-I think that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who is not in his place, said that the figure is 750,000, but my information from a parliamentary answer of 15 October is that it is 986,000-now have their DNA on the database, yet 2.3 million people who were convicted before DNA was routinely collected do not have their DNA on the database. No wonder the effectiveness of the database is steadily falling.
	Liberal Democrats favour instead a simple rule: if someone is convicted, their DNA will remain on the database; if they are innocent, it will not. By contrast, the Government's illiberal proposal is likely to be struck down again by the European Court, as it is not a proportionate response to a problem, and it still intrudes on the right to privacy guarded in the European convention on human rights.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman just said that if someone is guilty and convicted, they are on the database, but if someone is innocent, they are not on the database. I thought that he supported the Scottish system whereby if someone is arrested but not charged for a serious offence they remain on the database. Is this a change in his approach?

Christopher Huhne: The Home Secretary will have noticed that at our party conference-I note that we are a party that determines these things democratically-we voted very firmly for the view that innocence and guilt should be the determining criterion for whether someone is on the database. That has the great merit of simplicity and of being understood in line with our traditions in this country.

Chris Grayling: It is important for the House to understand where the Liberal Democrats are positioned on this matter, which is clearly going to be a matter of debate in the next few weeks, so can the hon. Gentleman clarify his position? Is he saying that the Scottish system is not the right one? I would have anticipated his supporting it, as he has appeared to do so in the past. Has that position changed?

Christopher Huhne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish system was introduced while the Liberal Democrats were in government in Scotland, and we were very happy with it. In fact, there is very little difference between the system that I have suggested and the Scottish system. As a matter of clarity, it would make things much simpler if we applied the simple rule of innocence versus guilt.
	The Labour Government's inadequate proposals on the DNA database are entirely typical of their approach to crime and civil liberties. Ministers have ignored the evidence of what really works to cut crime, but they have still managed to trample civil liberties underfoot. It is shocking, for example, that only one in five hospitals is providing the anonymised data that allow police to target violent hotspots and cut woundings by 40 per cent. In the case of Cardiff, that is clearly shown not in anecdotal evidence of the sort that the Home Secretary gave us on the DNA database, but in peer-reviewed, solid academic evidence of the type that he unfortunately proved rather too dismissive of in respect of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
	The reality is that Ministers repeatedly come here with proposals that scythe away at the right to protest, the right to know how people have died at the hands of the state, the right to jury trial, the right to express oneself in a public place, the right to know what one is charged with when detained for up to 28 days, and the right to leave one's own home if a Minister decides otherwise in a control order. Rarely has so much that is so precious been sacrificed so enthusiastically on the altar of ineffectiveness.
	That death of civil liberties by a thousand small cuts is precisely why Liberal Democrats have put forward a coherent and comprehensive Bill for repealing intrusions into hard-won freedoms. It is called the Freedom Bill. It proposes a reduction in the period of detention without charge from 28 days to 14 days. It advocates the abolition of the illiberal and discredited control orders regime-which, according to a recent front-page article in  The Daily Telegraph, the Conservatives oppose. I was surprised to see that, given that whenever the measure has been up for annual renewal they have repeatedly refused to join us in the Lobby to show their opposition.
	Our draft Bill also advocates renegotiating the unbalanced US-UK extradition treaty, with particular relevance to the current case of Gary McKinnon, who suffers from Asperger's syndrome; scrapping the illiberal and expensive identity cards scheme; and rolling back the surveillance state by curbing the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, rather than removing the checks on police use of that Act, as the Conservatives propose. Only by putting together the cumulative losses of freedoms can we dramatise the effects of this Government since 1997, and indeed of the last Conservative Administration. The Freedom Bill is a key priority for us.
	I turn to the stronger powers to tackle antisocial behaviour that have been suggested. It is a real and pressing problem across the country, as we all know from our constituencies. It can blight people's lives to live near or next to a family from hell. We will examine in detail the measures that the Government have brought forward in the Crime and Security Bill, and we will deal with them on their merits. Again, however, the strategy is far from clear.
	We would instead introduce new community justice panels and positive behaviour orders and increase the use of acceptable behaviour contracts, while reserving antisocial behaviour orders as a last resort. There is a real problem with ASBOs at present, because they are honoured mostly in the breach. They are not used as a last resort, and they are not enforced properly. In response to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who mentioned custody, ASBOs should be part of a graduated response to a problem rather than something that we go to early in the process, which merely brings them into disrepute. We would also pilot a youth volunteer force, to make engagement with the community more attractive to young people and to bridge the divide between young and old people. Activities could include the restoration of sports facilities or environmental projects, providing people with skills for the future.
	I turn to immigration, which was an important feature of the remarks of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in particular. The Government have squandered opportunity upon opportunity to reform what is a broken system. The draft Immigration Bill is the ninth immigration Bill since 1997. If they were going to simplify the system all along, why have they used eight Acts to make it so complicated that the long-awaited and much lauded simplification Bill is now only ready to be published in draft? Their inability to tackle the issues involved simply beggars belief.
	The debate on immigration should be based on the evidence of benefit to this country, not on scaremongering about British jobs for British workers or on whipping up yet more anti-immigration rhetoric. The abolition of exit checks by the Conservative Government, followed up by the Labour Government, means that we still have no idea how many people are in this country illegally. Nearly 2 million short-term visas are issued every year to students and others, but we still cannot check whether they have been respected by seeing whether the people who have been issued with them have left the country, as the UK Border Agency is still only able to check 60 per cent. of exits from this country. The Liberal Democrats would immediately reinstate exit checks, so that we could at least grasp the extent of the problem and ensure that short-term visas were respected. We would create a new national border force with police powers, so that our borders were properly controlled.
	I did not hear anything from the Conservative Benches, or indeed the Labour Benches, about the benefits of legal migration. With a quarter of the doctors and half the nurses in London having been born overseas, the NHS would collapse without migrant workers. Migration must be able to respond to the diverse needs of different regions and industries, and a blunt cap on immigration of the sort proposed by the Conservatives-without any number attached to it, we note-would frankly be a Soviet-style response from a dynamic market economy such as that of the UK. Would we really refuse to allow Manchester City to sign Robinho at the transfer window because a cap had been reached, or refuse to allow some City of London firm to hire someone who could help create jobs for British people by bringing a skill that was not already available to us? That is just simple populism, not sensible policy.
	North of the border in Scotland, even Conservatives want more migration and a larger population. In the south-east of England, by contrast, we are talking of desalination plants to provide fresh water, which clearly shows that we are reaching the environmental limits of population density, because such plants require fossil fuels to heat the water to evaporate the salt.
	The Liberal Democrats would ensure that immigration works in the interests of the UK by creating a regional points-based immigration system, giving greater weight to skills and regions that need migrants and less to those that do not.

Chris Grayling: With respect, I do not think I have heard such a load of complete nonsense for a long time. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that? How can he have a regional points-based system? If there is a quota for the north-east and people are allowed to move there, what stops them emigrating there and then moving to London, which may be full up?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman really must stop displaying his ignorance of matters within his portfolio. If he had actually spent any time studying systems that are based on the points-based system that we apparently copied, he would know that they operate in Australia and Canada. What happens is that a visa is issued that applies to a particular geographical area.
	The hon. Gentleman may be aware that 192 million people come in and go out of this country every year and that the most effective way of controlling illegal immigration is through employers. The system is very simple. As they do in Australia and Canada, we ensure that an employer has the visa papers of an employee. If they do not entitle that employee to work in that region, that is illegal immigration just as much as not having a visa at all. The system is very simple and it works. He could tell me that people will live in Southampton and work in Edinburgh, but that is highly unlikely. The main point is that the visa applies to the workplace, which is-he can talk to the UK Border Agency about this-the most important way of enforcement.

Anne McGuire: May I give the hon. Gentleman a scenario? Suppose a company in Eastleigh that employs migrant workers has a branch office in Edinburgh, to which it would like to transfer two of those workers. How would he police a system which, effectively, is almost about internal house arrest in parts of the country? It is a bizarre suggestion.

Christopher Huhne: It is not internal house arrest at all because it applies not to where people live, but to where they work. The key point is that it is a work visa. That is what happens in both Australia and Canada and, actually, the right hon. Lady should be aware that it happens in this country too. I agree that the Government whom she has supported do not enforce visas adequately and that they do not do enough checks of employers. There have been far too few prosecutions of employers-fewer than 200 since 1997 on the latest figures-but it is through those and checks on employers that we enforce the existing system. Exactly the same thing would apply under a regional points-based system.
	The home affairs aspects of this Queen's Speech are nothing new: yet more legislation, thrown together in a haphazard manner and designed only to attract headlines rather than tackle meaningful reform an any issue, from policing to civil liberties, immigration and the DNA database. This Government have created 3,600 new criminal offences since 1997 and we are still counting-such criminal offences as the creation of a nuclear explosion, as if murder and criminal damage were not enough to meet the contingency. We have seen sheaves upon sheaves of new Bills. If law was the answer to problems, we would have none. However, law is rarely the only answer, and sometimes not even a partial one. It is high time the Government concentrated on evidence and delivery rather than new Bills. If they did so, Britain would be a better place with a substantially lower crime rate.

John Austin: Today marks the 10th anniversary of the formal proclamation by the United Nations of 25 November as international day for the elimination of violence against women. Violence against women and girls takes many forms and affects all our communities. I acknowledge that the Government have done much to raise awareness and to protect victims of domestic violence, and much in the area of prevention, as the Home Secretary outlined earlier. I do not wish to delay the House by quoting more statistics, except for one that relates to the different way in which women and men may experience violence. Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women, but in domestic violence, in which the vast majority of victims are women, the victims have been assaulted on average 35 times before reporting those crimes to the police.
	I welcome the Home Secretary's statement of support for the white ribbon campaign, as worn by many right hon. and hon. Members today. I commend the campaign, especially on its efforts to involve men in tackling the issue of domestic violence. In a Parliament in which women are under-represented, it is vitally important that male parliamentarians get involved in this campaign.
	The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on which I serve, is persevering with its commitment to promote the drafting of a future Council of Europe convention to prevent and combat violence against women, including domestic violence. In adopting a binding legal instrument, the Council of Europe would send out a strong political signal. I hope that the Government will support such a move in the Committee of Ministers. As the vice-chair of the sub-committee on trafficking in human beings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I welcome the Government's decision, a year ago, to ratify the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. Earlier this week, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, together with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who was in his place earlier, visited the human rights trafficking centre in Sheffield. I know that the future location and legal status of the centre is under discussion. Whatever happens in those discussions, the corporate identity and the collective wisdom in the Sheffield unit should be retained.
	I recall that part of the Government's initial reluctance to ratify the convention was the argument from immigration officials that a victim-based approach could undermine immigration controls-the so-called pull factor. At the time, the JCHR argued that it was not credible to suggest that a woman would voluntarily submit to indeterminate sexual slavery of the most brutal kind for the purpose of obtaining UK residency. Thankfully, that view prevailed and was accepted by the Government. But I fear that immigration officials have not substantially changed their views and for that reason if, come April, the human rights trafficking centre is not to be a free-standing agency, it would in my view be better and more appropriate for it to be located with the Serious Organised Crime Agency rather than with the UK Border Agency.
	The convention on trafficking has been in effect since February, and the monitoring system is now up and running. I seek an assurance from the Government that they will continue to ensure that the monitoring mechanism-the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings or GRETA-is adequately resourced and that they will legislate or otherwise act on its findings on the UK's implementation of the convention.
	There are conflicting statistics on trafficking but we know that thousands are trafficked for sexual exploitation, the majority of whom are women. However, it is not only trafficked women who are forced or coerced into prostitution, which is another example of violence against women. Most prostituted women have been abused, and most of them are tricked into prostitution usually by men who groom them, get them addicted or use their power over them in other ways. That is why I welcome the historic vote in the other place on 3 November to back the Government and make it a crime for men to demand and pay for sex with trafficked women or those forced or coerced to work as prostitutes. In that historic vote, we have moved from the supply side to the demand side by insisting that men, not women, should bear responsibility for the abuse of prostituted women. But that vote will be effective only if the law is used. Passing the law is not the same as implementing it. It will be up to the Government to ensure that the police and magistrates make it work.
	I do not want to comment substantially on the circumstances of the Dr. Magnanti and Belle de Jour saga, but I agree with Object's campaigns co-ordinator, Anna van Heeswijk, writing in the  Evening Standard, that the one voice that has been conspicuously absent is that of the silent and silenced majority of women in prostitution who do not experience the sex industry as harmless fun. I share her view that the glamorous way in which it has been presented in the media tends
	"to normalise what for the majority constitutes abuse and exploitation"
	and
	"grooms women and girls into thinking that selling their bodies is an empowering career choice and tells men and boys that buying women for sexual use is acceptable".
	It is not. And we should state firmly that it is not.
	Another gross form of violence against women is female genital mutilation. I congratulate the Government on having introduced the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, which is intended to help prevent that unacceptable and barbaric practice.

David Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Act was introduced, not one person has been convicted of an offence under it and that only one case has been investigated? Is it not a disgrace that the Act was passed but no real action has been taken?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) that, if he has given way, he must not remain on his feet.

John Austin: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman anticipated my comments. There is substantial evidence to suggest that hundreds of girls and young women are taken from this country every year for such abuse to be carried out elsewhere. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) told the House that there have been no prosecutions or convictions for female genital mutilation. The Government have appointed a cross-Government co-ordinator to provide a single point of contact for work on that issue, and I hope that a Minister can come before the House, in the not-too-distant future, to report progress on the matter.
	I wish to make one other reference to the Council of Europe. As the Parliamentary Assembly's rapporteur on honour-based violence, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the assistance that his officials gave to me in commenting on the draft text of my report before publication. The report's recommendations have been adopted unanimously by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Most of the recommendations are already in place and have been implemented in the UK, but I would welcome Home Office support in the Committee of Ministers for the widest possible implementation of the recommendations on honour-based violence throughout the 47 member states.
	On the issue of forced marriages, the Government are to be congratulated on the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which came into force last year. There is a fine line between forced marriage and so-called honour crime, as was shown in the brave testimony of Dr. Abedin, a woman doctor of Bangladeshi origin practising in London, who gave evidence to our committee. She had been held captive in Bangladesh and forced to marry. Thanks to the legislation passed by this Government and this Parliament, and with the co-operation between the UK and Bangladeshi authorities, she has been able to return to the UK, where she is trying to rebuild her life.
	I would like to say a brief word on constitutional reform. Some 40 years ago, I chaired the British Youth Council and was involved in a successful campaign to reduce the voting age to 18. A few weeks ago, some hon. Members were in the Gallery of the Chamber when the UK Youth Parliament met and voted to take up as its campaign the right to vote at 16. I support it in that endeavour and shall quote a speech in the debate by a young man called James Evans:
	"At 16, we can marry our MP, we can sleep with our MP and we can have children with our MP. We can sign up in preparation for fighting and potentially dying for our MP. And suddenly we are not mature enough to vote for them".
	I thought that those were wise words from a young, potential parliamentarian.
	You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am the hon. Member who represents Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh. Although famed for being a maximum security prison, which it is, Belmarsh is also a local prison. I share the view of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) that there are far too many people, and particularly young people, who are in prison inappropriately for less serious crimes and for whom it serves no positive purpose. When we discuss the new Crime and Security Bill, I hope that we will see more resources diverted into restorative justice schemes and non-custodial, community-based projects.
	I share the concern of the Children's Commissioner and the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe that too many of our young people are incarcerated or locked up in this country. Next door to Belmarsh, we are about to open the youth offenders institution Isis, which some people are calling "Son of Belmarsh". Less than a mile away from that institution, there are two superb projects: the youth awareness project and the archway project, which have a commendable record in diverting young people away from a life of crime. However, such projects are struggling for resources, while we pour more and more money into locking up young people for no positive purpose. I hope that we will see a transfer of funding into some of those more positive ways of working with young people.
	My final point relates to the tragedy that occurred a fortnight ago on Tavy bridge, which was the scene of the fatal stabbing of a young man called Moses Nteyoho. We have to tackle the problem of knife crime. Projects such as the youth awareness project in Thamesmead and the archway project are successfully doing just that and diverting young people away from gang culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler), who was recently appointed as the Cabinet Office Minister with responsibility for young citizens and youth engagement, recently visited those projects and was greatly impressed. I hope that she will report to other Ministers and Cabinet members on how such schemes can be supported and promoted.
	Charlton Athletic community trust has involved the parents of Rob Knox, who was fatally stabbed in Old Bexley and Sidcup. Charlton Athletic won the community club of the year award because of its "Street Violence Ruins Lives" campaign, which has brought the club and the community together to engage with young people. I invite the Ministers to come down and see Charlton Athletic community trust's action on fighting knife crime.

Shailesh Vara: May I say what a pleasure it is to follow a thought-provoking speech by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin)?
	In 1997, the Government came into power on a huge wave of expectation-expectation that was based on huge promises. Given that the Gracious Speech makes even more promises, we should reflect a little on the promises made in the past. To that extent, I will continue the theme started by the shadow Home Secretary. The Government's biggest promise was that they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. However, although the Government claim that crime is down, the reality is that violent crime is up, gun crime is up, knife crime is up and drug offences are up-by nearly 80 per cent. As we heard earlier, Britain has now become the cocaine capital of Europe.
	As for antisocial behaviour, all three Labour party manifestos-in 1997, 2001 and 2005-spoke of dealing with the problem. If ever there was an admission of failure, it was the reference in the Gracious Speech to introducing legislation to tackle antisocial behaviour. The tragedy is that, in the intervening years, so many people-often some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our community-have gone through so much suffering and misery. No one doubts that the 3.9 million incidences of antisocial behaviour recorded in England and Wales last year are a gross underestimate. People simply do not report these sorts of incidences because they are worried about the consequences for themselves and their families from the thugs who engage in such antisocial behaviour.

Sally Keeble: I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the first legislation on antisocial behaviour. As I recall it, the hon. Gentleman's party would not accept that there was such a thing as antisocial behaviour or that it needed legislation. Will he therefore deal with his party's road to Damascus conversion of accepting not just that antisocial behaviour exists, but that it is something that should be dealt with by law?

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to remind her that after 12 and a half years in government, she and her colleagues should perhaps address the promises they have made to the British public, rather than conversations in Committee Rooms in this place. Had they honoured and fulfilled those promises, perhaps the tone of this debate might have been a little different.
	At the Labour party conference in 2002, Tony Blair said:
	"Those who assault teachers or nurses should go to jail."
	No doubt Mr. Blair received rapturous applause from all those in the hall when he said that, but we should go to our hospitals today and see how many hospital staff are prepared to applaud the Government. We should ask the staff about the 55,000 physical assaults on hospital staff last year alone, and we should ask them if the promises of jail for those perpetrators have been fulfilled by the Government.

Phyllis Starkey: It is for the courts.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady says, "Of course," but I suggest that she does some homework before she makes such comments because the facts are anything but what she says.
	What of those thugs who are caught? For them, antisocial behaviour orders are more a badge of honour than a measure of crime prevention. The 2001 Labour manifesto included a pledge that "persistent offending" should lead to "more severe punishment", but that has turned out to be such a mockery that it is scarcely worth spending time on it, although I will dwell on it just a little. Penalty notices for disorder are dished out by police forces like confetti. Some individuals are given penalty notices even before they have paid for the previous one. Following a freedom of information request that I made to every police force in the country, I found that one individual had received eight notices in one year alone. Surely someone should have come to the conclusion at some point that the method of preventing crime by simply issuing another notice was not working.
	Labour's 1997 election pledge was to ensure that prison regimes would be constructive and that inmates faced up to their offending behaviour. There have been many subsequent promises to provide education and training, and treatment for drug addiction, but they have simply not been followed through. In fact, prison is now one of the best places in which to pick up a drug habit.
	Let us consider what actually happens to prisoners when they go to prison. A new prisoner waits a few weeks to get on a training course. When he or she finally gets on that course, they are likely to be moved to another prison halfway through that course-without finishing it. Then, at the new prison, they start the whole process again, and wait a few weeks to get on a course and so on, so the cycle continues and the training is never completed. No wonder prisoners leave prison still unable to read or write, or to have a useful trade that could help them contribute to society, rather than being dependent on society or offending again. It was hardly surprising that when my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) tabled a written question on the amount of education received in prisons, he was told on 5 November, at column 1212W of  Hansard, that prisoners at Reading prison receive less than an hour of education a day.
	The drug rehabilitation programme has a similar pattern to that for training. A prisoner waits for several weeks to get on a course, and when he finally gets on it, he is moved to another prison. He waits for a few weeks again, gets on a drug rehabilitation course, and moves on to another prison yet again before the course is completed.
	It is not only prisoners who are moved from one prison to another but, frequently, governors. It cannot be right that the average turnover time for a governor in a prison is a mere 18 months. We must have a system in which governors stay in a prison long enough to put in place initiatives that will be good for the inmates, and long enough to see those initiatives through. Given the present circumstances in prisons, it is hardly surprising that the incidence of self-harm in both prisons and youth offender institutions increased by more than 25 per cent. between 2004 and 2008.
	There has been an absolute failure to manage the prison population. The Government have ignored all the warnings about an impending crisis in prison places. That is why prison capacity is now at 99 per cent., and it would have been a lot worse were it not for the Government's early release programme, under which nearly 70,000 prisoners have been released early, including those who had been locked up for violent offences.
	The Labour manifesto of 1997 said that police should be on the beat, not pushing paper, yet 12 and a half years on, our police are being stifled by bureaucracy. Men and women join the police force not to sit behind desks, but to be out there on the streets, dealing with crime. We have the absurd situation in which the personal details of an arrested person can sometimes be recorded up to 17 times, on as many different forms.
	A different, but important, consideration that is often overlooked in such debates is the hidden cost of crime: the cost of pain and suffering endured by the victims; the cost to the national health service; the cost of social services; the cost of the stress and strain put on the family and friends of those who need to adjust to care for the victims of crime; the cost of lost wages; the cost of increased insurance premiums, and so on. Although those are the hidden costs of crime, they are nevertheless real. The Home Office has tried only once to cost the separate headings, and in 2003 the estimated figure for those hidden costs was a staggering £29 billion. I am not surprised that the Government are not keen on an annual assessment of the hidden cost of crime, because under them that figure would have increased on a regular basis.
	To conclude, I refer to the original phrase uttered by Tony Blair: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Two weeks ago, in an article in  The Sunday Times, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was asked to comment on whether he thought that Labour had delivered on that pledge, and his response was a diplomatic, "No comment." The Government have shown themselves to be weak on crime and weak on the causes of crime. They have shown themselves to be rich in rhetoric and poor in substance, plentiful in promises and lacking in delivery.
	After 12 years in government, six Home Secretaries, 39 junior Ministers, nearly 50 criminal justice Acts and more than 3,000 offences, the Government have still not delivered on law and order. They are past their sell-by date. More importantly, they are well past their use-by date. They need to acknowledge that it is time to go.

William Bain: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech during the debate on the Loyal Address. It is an honour for any right hon. or hon. Member to represent any constituency in this House, but it is an even more special privilege to be able to serve the community in which I was born, brought up and educated, and in which I have lived throughout my life.
	One of the upsides of having just fought the longest by-election campaign in modern history is that I was able to meet almost one in six, or 10,000, of my constituents during its course. What renewed my faith in our democratic process was having the opportunity to share my vision for Glasgow, North-East, and to hear of my constituents' hopes for their future, face to face. Despite the low turnout, the people of Glasgow, North-East care deeply about politics and about repairing the reputation of this House. They have sent me here to support the recommendations of the Kelly report, and to seek greater transparency in the way in which decisions are made by the House and our other democratic institutions.
	It was gratifying that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends-and, indeed, right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, particularly the right hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)-were able to campaign in the constituency. Perhaps that contributed to the unexpected size of my majority, which was 8,111.
	I should like to share with the House a conversation that I had with a voter on the eve of polling day. Many Members may sympathise with my predicament. When I canvassed this particular elector for the third time, he greeted me with the same response that he had given on the previous two occasions. "Are you still trying?" he asked. "Yes," I said. "I cannot support any of you," he said. "None of the candidates has sufficient experience to be elected as my MP." As I prepared to concede and to consider that my efforts might be fruitless, he leaned conspiratorially over his garden fence and said "Don't worry, I will be supporting your party-not because of you, mind you; I will be voting for the Prime Minister."
	I represent a varied and interesting group of more than 20 communities in Glasgow, North-East, from Ruchill and Lambhill in the west to Hogganfield and Millerston in the east, and from Dennistoun in the south to Colston and Milton in the north. Each has its own history and character, but what they have in common is that they contain people of great humour, hard-working people, people of intelligence, talent and aspiration.
	During the campaign, I met mothers in Royston who were determined to fight for better child care so that they could work more hours to support their families. I met young people in Ruchazie who were taking the first step towards an apprenticeship through a programme run by a local voluntary group. I met retired people in Possilpark who were running a lunch club three times a week for local disabled people because of their strong sense of social responsibility. While they do not believe that Government on their own have the answer to every ill in society, nor do they believe that Government are the problem-and nor do they believe that Government should be cut back, with all the social consequences that we saw in Glasgow in the 1980s and early 1990s.
	My constituents are not, as some portrayed them in the election, passive recipients of the welfare state, but people who want to see their children do better than they have done and to possess the courage and ambition to strengthen their communities. They elected me because I will stand up for their values, and will support the policies on investment in jobs, child care, pensions, tax credits and the minimum wage that will bring about a great improvement in their living standards. They support an active state that can be a force for good and has greater equality as its aim, not an enabling state that would enfeeble communities because of its withdrawal of investment in jobs or decent public services.
	The Glasgow, North-East constituency was created at the last general election from the previous seats of Glasgow, Springburn and Glasgow, Maryhill. Both areas have in the past had outstanding representatives, such as George and Agnes Hardie, John Forman, Richard Buchanan, James Craigen, Maria Fyfe-as doughty a fighter for social justice today as she was when a Member of this House-and, of course, my neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), whose commitment on issues such as international development I have respected for over a decade. There have even been two Conservative Members in the past: Frederick Macquiston, supporting a Liberal-Conservative coalition between 1918 and 1922, and Captain Charles Emmott of the National Government coalition between 1931 and 1935. Neither experiment has been repeated by my constituents since.
	My immediate predecessor is Lord Martin of Springburn, and of Port Dundas. He is an exceptional person and parliamentarian. My family and many others in my constituency have known him for decades, and can attest that his career has been a tribute to the best traditions of public service. I know him to be a man of great fortitude under pressure-never more so than when Speaker of this House for nearly nine years-and of great kindness. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will have their own memories of individual acts of encouragement or advice he gave, but no one will forget the compassion he showed to the late Patsy Calton on resuming her seat after the last general election in the midst of her brave battle with cancer.
	Lord Martin was a member of Glasgow Corporation between 1973 and 1979, and a Member of this House for 30 years, being returned with prodigious majorities in seven consecutive general elections. Key to his politics was his passion for better housing. His own experiences growing up in Anderston, together with his vision to improve his community, led him to champion the development of new social housing. He was a founder-member of what is now North Glasgow Housing Association, and the more than £100 million of investment in homes in the constituency is an achievement of which Lord Martin and this Government can justly be proud.
	As Speaker, Lord Martin was a resolute defender of the rights and privileges of the legislature from Executive encroachment. His wit, fairness and humour are missed from this House, but are now at the disposal of the other place. I wish him and his family well for the future, and it is a particular pleasure to work with his son, Paul, who is an outstanding Member of the Scottish Parliament for the area.
	Every Member representing Glasgow is also a successor to the tradition of progressive politics championed by John Wheatley and James Maxton. Their commitment to equality finds new expression in our debate today. Most of my working life has been spent in education, and I was pleased to visit recently both colleges in my constituency: John Wheatley college in Haghill, and North Glasgow college in Springburn. They provide people with high-quality further and higher education and training, transforming the life chances of, and outcomes for, my constituents.
	The most pressing issue in this debate, and for the country at large, is unemployment and how to move our economy into recovery. Although the increase in unemployment has slowed in recent months, the International Monetary Fund anticipates that it will continue to rise until 2010, and this particularly impacts upon young people. Our constituents will judge us harshly if we fail to act now. That is why we need not only a continuing fiscal stimulus, but a continuing jobs stimulus. I welcome the additional £5 billion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has to invest in jobs for 18 to 24-year-olds and the long-term unemployed. I welcome the impact the future jobs fund is having in Glasgow, where 470 jobs have been created so far, but there is an urgent need for many more. I will shortly bring together employers, the city council and voluntary groups in my area to develop bids to bring more of this investment to Glasgow, North-East. At present, there are 1,275 jobless young people in my constituency, but only 617 employment vacancies. Had it not been for the policies followed by this Government on the new deal, the flexible new deal and the future jobs fund in the past year, the number of unemployed would have been far higher.
	We have faced the biggest shock to the global economy for more than 60 years and our European Union partners are struggling with high unemployment too. Tough economic times make the burden of child and family poverty even greater, which is why I support the Child Poverty Bill in setting targets and setting out a comprehensive strategy for the abolition of child poverty by 2020. We also need to commit across the House to the improvements in child benefit, tax credits and the minimum wage that will make it happen.
	These will be vital months in securing our economic recovery, and the jobs and living standards of millions of people will be affected by the decisions we take. Whatever our differences on policy across this Chamber, the great strength of this House is that we can rise to national challenges together. Let us face these responsibilities together and remember that greater economic fairness and equality is the prerequisite of greater liberty for the British people. I look forward to debating these issues and others with hon. and right hon. Members across this House in the coming months and to supporting the Gracious Speech in the Division Lobby today and tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to Adjournment (Christmas), the Ayes were 273 and the Noes were 198, so the question was agreed to.
	 [The Division list is published at the end of today's debates.]

Anthony Steen: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain) on his speech. I cannot remember when I made my maiden speech or even what I made it about, but I should say that making a successful maiden speech, such as his, is an initiation through which we all have to go to be accepted by both sides of this House. I actually listened to his speech and the fact that so many other Members were present shows that they listened to it too. We all look forward to listening to more of what he has to say, but I must tell him that the Chamber will not be as silent in future as it was then.
	I wish to discuss the absence in the Gracious Speech of the subject of human trafficking. We often hear about crimes, drugs, knife crimes and DNA, but we do not talk much in this Chamber about the problems caused by human trafficking, which exist in Scotland as much as they do in England. The fact that the United Nations put the searchlight on human trafficking shows that it is a serious international problem. In the 19th century, this horrific crime was recognised as a fundamental abuse of human rights worldwide; citizens of richer nations felt that they could, with impunity, abuse and control the lives of those less fortunate than themselves. It is not that slavery was anything new in the 19th century, as it had already existed for thousands of years, with Israelites in Egypt having been enslaved by Pharaohs. What Wilberforce did was to draw attention to it and highlight the fundamental injustice of one human being misusing and abusing another for their own personal gain. Wilberforce had amazing public relations skills, which resulted in the world banning slavery.
	Sadly, however, passing Acts of Parliament does not stop slavery. What we have got now in this country and in the world is new slavery. The United Nations figures suggest that nearly 1 million people are enslaved each year, being trafficked and exploited. Men, women and children are victims, some of forced labour, some of sexual exploitation. Trafficking has leapfrogged over arms dealing and is now second only to drug trafficking when it comes to criminal activity and gain. Human trafficking is estimated to generate annual profits for the traffickers of £32 billion.
	Wilberforce brought the slave trade to an end and the so-called developed countries moved on, but they moved on to create new slavery. Ten years ago, the subject was barely debated in the Chamber or recognised as an issue. Not much space was given to it in our debates, either here or anywhere else, because, to put it simply, there are few votes in human trafficking. It is not a matter that concerns the electorate.
	We must give credit to the Government and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) in his former role as Minister of State in the Home Office for drawing attention to new slavery as it affects this country and for doing something about it. It is not about smuggling people, asylum seeking or illegal immigration. Human trafficking is something different-it deceives and misleads some of the most vulnerable people in the poorest countries into believing that there is a new and better tomorrow around the corner. It is about deception. It is about using other people's lives to make money for the trafficker.
	Yes, there are sex traffickers. There are illiterate girls with lover-boy syndrome. There are girls with little self-esteem and no education, who are often from rural backgrounds and who typically have unstable family histories. Trafficking does not just happen from poor countries to this country-it happens within this country, too. Trafficking is going on within England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and it is growing. Trafficking does not just take place from Thailand or Bulgaria-it takes place within the country as well as outside it.
	As regards child trafficking, there are children from China and Vietnam involved in the cultivation of cannabis plants. The Metropolitan police have 300 factories identified in London alone and there must be more in other parts of the country. However, it is principally children from the EU who are trafficked to steal on the streets and who are involved in ATM thefts. There is no place for these children to go into care, because there are no people with the same language who are willing to foster them and there is no room in children's homes. They are sent back to where they came from and re-trafficked. Some are under the age of 10 and an artful child can earn up to £100,000 a year for their traffickers. We have identified more than 1,000 such children already on the streets in this country, and they move between this country, Spain, Italy and back again, avoiding detection.
	Globally, there is growing awareness of how extensive trafficking is and of the different types of exploitation into which people are trafficked, but it is not visible. Of course it is not-we do not see car thieves or burglars in the act, and we do not see traffickers in the act. It is worth noting that more than twice as many people are in bondage in the world today as were ever in chains during the 350 years of the African slave trade.
	I mentioned the Minister for Schools and Learners, the hon. Member for Gedling, and I should mention the action plan that brings together the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. All the Government Departments are now involved. We have wonderful non-governmental organisations in this country, such as ECPAT UK-which stands for End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes-the POPPY project, the Helen Bamber Foundation and other anti-trafficking bodies. Endless groups of people are concerned about the problem, but it is still growing.
	Against that background, I want to approach the question of why the Metropolitan police are planning to close their human trafficking department. I have been one of the people who are fortunate enough to have been on the police service parliamentary scheme for the last two years; I think that I am the oldest policeman on the streets of London. It has allowed me to see the splendid work of the human trafficking team. We have 31,000 officers in the Metropolitan police, and there are only nine in the human trafficking department. The plan is to close it, as they say that it should be merged. However, if they merge it, the department's profile will be lost, as will the important work that it does.
	The Olympics mean that more people will be trafficked, and I shall give the House an idea of the numbers involved. There will be 100,000 people working on the games, as well as 10,500 athletes and 20,000 press and media people, and a total of 9 million tickets will be held by spectators. Human trafficking will increase, and it will affect the men involved in debt bondage, the children trafficked on the streets and the women trafficked for sex. To close the Metropolitan police scheme, as is being considered at the moment, would be sheer folly.
	I have the privilege to chair the all-party committee on human trafficking, and we are diametrically opposed to the human trafficking team being closed and absorbed by some other group.

John Austin: Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions about that proposal with the Mayor of London, who chairs the Metropolitan Police Authority? Has he asked what the justification for it is?

Anthony Steen: That is a splendid idea and, if I may, I shall blame the hon. Gentleman for giving it to me. I shall approach the Mayor tomorrow and convey to him exactly that point.
	I turn now to the UK Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield, which the hon. Gentleman and I visited last Monday. I thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights for inviting me to attend, as it was an illuminating and interesting day, but I am also concerned that the Government are thinking of closing that centre too, on the basis that it could be absorbed into the Serious Organised Crime Agency or put into the immigration service.
	If either option came about, we would once again lose the important knowledge that the centre has provided over the years and which has been of such benefit. Incorporating it into a larger organisation may be good political thinking on the part of a Labour Government who like things to be bigger and bigger, but it will not help the human trafficking scene in this country.

John Austin: The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK Government's ratification of the convention on human trafficking was delayed in part by arguments from the UK Border Agency that there was a pull factor in adopting a victim-based approach to trafficking. Does he share my view that the Border Agency is not the place to locate the trafficking unit?

Anthony Steen: I agree entirely. The UK Border Agency, good though it is, has serious problems, one of which is that it does not distinguish a person who is trafficked from one who is not. The UK Human Trafficking Centre was established only two and a half years ago and there are problems with it, but it is tackling its task and its staff are very committed. The hon. Gentleman and I were both impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the people working there. Most of them are police officers, of course, but some staff are from the Border Agency and there are a few outside people as well. It would clearly be a very big mistake to close down the structure that has been set up.
	I have a few more things to say. First, the Inter-Parliamentary Union is holding a conference at the end of February so that parliamentarians from other countries can learn about this country's experience with trafficking. I think that our experience has been good and that we have done very well, but other Parliaments need to benefit from what we have done, just as we must benefit from what they are doing.
	If I may say so, our all-party group on human trafficking will be doing a Billy Graham before the parliamentarians from other EU countries. We will be trying to excite their interest and involve them in the human trafficking debate. We want to learn from them, and we want them to learn from us.
	New slavery is not a thing of the past. It is a thing of the present, and it is rampant across the world. We in the UK have a good story to tell and I hope that, by leading a campaign among IPU representatives and parliamentarians from every EU country, we will be able to make progress in tackling this appalling scourge. Wilberforce thought that he had solved it, but it exists now in a greater measure than it ever did in his day. I am going to speak to Spanish parliamentarians on Monday next, and I am going to Paris to speak to the French. It is a busy and important task, and I hope the Home Secretary and the Government will support the initiative.

David Burrowes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing the cause for so many months and years. It is important that he has brought it to our attention. As well as raising its international profile, is it not important to bring it to the attention of local communities, such as in Enfield, where we set up our own commission to look at the information on whether human trafficking occurs in Enfield, as we know it does, and across our communities? As much as we need national and international co-operation, it is important to ground it in local information and action.

Anthony Steen: I am glad I had a minute to spare. That is a good point. There are initiatives throughout London and, I hope, in other parts of the country, where local people are going around trying to identify people who may have been trafficked. I have a confession to make. Croydon churches decided that they would do that. They went to the police, who said, "There are between six and eight brothels that we know about in Croydon, and we occasionally go and see whether there are any trafficked people there." The group of churches discovered that there were 60 brothels in Croydon, not just the six that were known about. It is a major problem-not just prostitution, but girls who are trafficked from other parts of the country and other parts of the world. I am delighted to learn that the problem is not confined to Croydon, but occurs in Enfield and north London.

Sally Keeble: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Loyal Address. The hon. Gentleman's work on trafficking has been very important. My constituency has been heavily affected by trafficked women and trafficked children, so the work that he has undertaken has been valuable.
	I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain). It was a pleasure to hear him speak and, at a time when there is so much cynicism about politics, to hear such a straightforward, idealistic and optimistic speech. I am sure his career in the House will be long and distinguished, and I offer him many congratulations on his speech.
	There was some suggestion from the Opposition that the Queen's Speech was a waste of time and that we should be reforming Parliament or holding an election, but there is some important work to do. Some of the most important items relate to the home affairs brief and the Department for Work and Pensions portfolio, so I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in today's debate.
	One of the topics on which I wish to speak is the mandatory code on alcohol sales, which will be the subject of secondary legislation due at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. I take the opportunity to encourage my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to make sure that the code is as robust as it can be. They should not take the view that because there is an election coming along nothing should be done about alcohol. Apart from being necessary, the measures to combat binge drinking chime well with the public mood. In my constituency they have been supported at public meetings and debates and in online surveys.
	There are three aspects that concern people: labelling, in-store and happy hour-type promotions, and price controls. The controls on happy hour-type promotions partly affect price, but do not go far enough, particularly because they tend to affect pubs and clubs, whereas part of the mischief of excess drinking arises from off-licence and supermarket sales. It is important that, if we are to deal with the problems of pricing, we have measures that go across both the on trade and the off trade.
	People say that all the problems can be solved by making drink more expensive, but it is also about preventing drinking from becoming even cheaper. In Northampton, some of the pubs and clubs discount their prices so that they can become student bars, and once they have the clientele the prices drift back up. A couple of years ago, the price of a drink in the student promotion was £1.50. Now, it is two drinks-a drink and a shot-for £1. That is 50p a drink. The clubs say that if they went right down to the base price that they pay for the alcohol-without factoring in the cost of staff, maintaining the premises, and so on-the cost could be as low as 24p a unit. If alcohol started to get even close to that price, the impact on health and on law and order would be absolutely catastrophic. Minimum pricing, which I believe a mandatory code should bring in, would set a floor under that kind of discounting.
	Exactly the same would apply in supermarkets. Everyone is familiar with the argument that supermarkets get people in to buy discounted alcohol, then cross-sell to other products. Effectively, the other products, and other drinkers, are having to subsidise the cost of very cheap alcohol. Sometimes, alcohol can be cheaper than water, which is complete nonsense.
	A recent inquiry conducted by the Health Committee found that Tesco was not completely opposed to minimum pricing, and the World Health Organisation has stated:
	"Increasing the price of alcoholic beverages is one of the most effective interventions to reduce harmful use of alcohol. Consumers, including heavy drinkers and young people, are sensitive to changes in the price of drinks."
	It is the excessive drinking and binge drinking of heavy drinkers and young people in particular that is causing the greatest public concern.
	Some careful work has also been done by Sheffield university and others on the impact of pricing on alcohol consumption. Concrete results from the Sheffield studies show that a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol would prevent 1,400 deaths a year and produce an estimated reduction of 41,000 hospital admissions and 16,000 incidents of crime a year. According to Alcohol Concern, a minimum price of 50p a unit would result in 3,393 fewer deaths and 45,800 fewer crimes a year, and a total saving of £7.4 billion over 10 years.
	I would also like to spell out some of the support for introducing minimum pricing or, at least, tighter controls on alcohol prices. Not just the police, the chief medical officer and others in the health world and the National Association of Head Teachers think that it would be helpful. There is also significant support in the entertainment and drinks industries themselves. Recently, the head of this country's biggest chain of nightclubs, Luminar, accompanied me to see an hon. Friend in the Home Office. We talked about the importance of providing a floor for alcohol prices to secure a more realistic base for the entertainment industry and reach a position where people choose their nightclubs based on the quality of the venue, not because they are engaged in a "how low can you go" competition in the price of drinks on offer.
	I hope that when the mandatory code is introduced towards the end of the year, it will not only deal in very strict order with information and education, but have real teeth on pricing and, in particular, look at introducing minimum pricing to combat what has been a social menace. The issue was first raised with me by constituents concerned about the impact of antisocial behaviour by young people drinking on the Moulton Leys estate.
	The second measure that I am really pleased to be able to discuss is the Child Poverty Bill, which has been carried over so that it can complete its parliamentary stages. I hope that all parties will support it not just with warm, fluffy words, but by giving real teeth to the regulations and secondary legislation that will be introduced in the new year. They will set out how our local authorities implement those measures and ensure that they tackle child poverty in their areas. However, I shall table some amendments to the Bill to strengthen its safeguards for poor families in housing, because, although the legislation already contains such proposals, they are not strong enough.
	I hope also that the legislation from the Department for Work and Pensions will include some real opportunities to provide more support for parents' flexible working. I recently undertook some research in my constituency into the impact of the recession on families in Northampton, and, with information from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it clearly shows that as a result of the recession more women are becoming the breadwinners. They say that they are the breadwinners and take primary responsibility for the financial well-being of the family, and that their partners are taking more responsibility for child care. In those circumstances, it is important that we extend flexible working arrangements to men, if appropriate, so that they can take even more responsibility for their children, and women can pursue their careers and increase their income for the benefit of their families.
	One legacy of the recession will be changed family structures, roles and responsibilities, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will ensure that their proposals meet those challenges, so that families can build a more secure future.

David Burrowes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who was quite right to focus on alcohol and the need for action on the problem. Indeed, there has not been such action in the past 12 years. The hon. Lady makes a good case for minimum pricing, and it must be looked at carefully.
	We have a Scottish experiment on minimum pricing. The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain), whom I, too, commend on his maiden speech, referred to the Scottish experiment with Conservative Members of Parliament, and now we have an experiment with minimum pricing, so we will see whether it is a success. This is an important issue on which we must all reflect, but I commend to the Government the Conservative proposals for targeted tax increases on problem drinks such as alcopops and super-strength lagers. We need to take proper, targeted action in relation to the prevalence of alcohol and the menace that it causes in our communities. That reflects the fact that we have not achieved that yet, by any means.
	As ever in our home affairs debates, I declare an interest as a just-about-practising criminal solicitor with a keen interest in yet another crime Bill. Reference has been made to whether there have been 28 or nearly 50 crime and justice Bills under this Government. It reminds me of childhood songs that my children now sing. They repeatedly sing the second verse of the same song a little bit louder and a little bit worse, and so it goes on. One feels that about the Government's repeated Home Office and Ministry of Justice legislation. I worry that we are just getting more of the same and more that is worse. The latest Bill has similar characteristics to all those that have gone before. In the theme of the season, we have a Christmas tree Bill. I fear that the members of the Public Bill Committee that considers it will see ever more amendments hanging off it as desperate attempts are made to introduce measures to plug the gaps, whether in relation to antisocial behaviour, crime or security.
	The other characteristic of such home affairs legislation is that the Government are dealing with a problem of their own making. In the case of the DNA database, for example, the Government are trying to catch up with court judgments and the values of our country. We have heard about mission creep and the over-involvement of innocent people, and the Government's use of secondary legislation has meant that we have not had the opportunity to debate the issue during consideration of primary legislation. A welcome aspect of the Bill is that we will have the opportunity to debate the important principles that have been under attack from this Government and the need to ensure that we have a proper balance between security and liberty.
	The Bill fails to deal with issues of repeal. In our desire to have new pieces of legislation to deal with issues of crime and justice, we must recognise the need to repeal elements of what has gone before. It is a shame that the Government do not recognise the extent of their mistakes. They would do well to look at previous legislation and to implement it-and enforce it-better. We need only look at the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a large proportion of which is not yet implemented. Parts of that Act, like many others that have gone before, are now largely discredited-for example its provisions on automatic release, particularly as they apply to people with short-term sentences. An example was recently reported in Essex of a person with a short sentence who was released automatically. Partly because of home detention curfews and their having been sentenced on a Friday, they were given the grant for their release and turned out. It is unacceptable that automatic release happens without any conditions in relation to the person's behaviour while in prison.
	I want to focus briefly on what is and is not in the Bill. It gives welcome attention to the whole area of domestic violence, particularly against women. That is a significant problem in all our communities. A particularly pernicious problem is that of repeat victimisation. That needs to be tackled in several ways, whether through enforcement-we must look carefully at those provisions in the Bill-or, as has been mooted today, through education and prevention. Many victims experience the problem of going to report an incident and facing up to seeking help. We need to recognise the role of the voluntary sector, not least in areas such as mine. There is a particular issue in relation to domestic violence in the Asian community. Organisations such as Naree Shakti-it means "women's strength"-play a role in that. The point of that organisation is to provide women with the strength to come forward and receive the ongoing support that the voluntary sector is so good at giving. We need to consider in the round how we can best tackle the problem.
	The Government wish to focus on education about domestic violence prevention, but wider matters have to be brought into sharp relief, such as the important part that drugs and alcohol sadly play in domestic violence. When one considers that, one sees the lack of funding and direction in our prevention programme. The Government and the Home Office pay all too little attention to the matter, and that needs to change. Perhaps in some ways we should not be surprised, because the Home Office's drugs strategy has led us down that path. It is less about prevention, enforcement and recovery and more about harm reduction, which has meant that the Government's focus has been on managing the problem rather than getting to the root causes of it and seeking to tackle it. We have seen the outcomes of that approach.
	Today, the Home Secretary seemed remarkably complacent about the problem of drugs in this country. Drug deaths continue to rise-they are the highest in Europe-and the cost of drug abuse, through crime and health services, has been more than £100 billion since 1998. It is important that we deal with the situation, because it is not just a crime and justice problem, but a problem for health and the wider community.
	We should not get away from the fact that the prevalence and usage of drugs has got worse. The age of initiation has come down, and we need to do more to tackle the fact that the UK is the worst in Europe for drug use. We need proper and effective treatment, but let us look at the outcome of the admittedly large amount that has gone into it. In the past year, of the 202,666 problematic drug users in treatment, how many had completed programmes to the point of becoming drug-free? Just 8,980. That is unacceptable, given the investment, and we must consider why it is the case. One problem is the Government's focus on managing the problem rather than seriously tackling it, and another is the fact that between January 2008 and this October, 20 residential rehabilitation centres closed.
	The situation is bleaker when we consider prisons. There has been a 64 per cent. increase in methadone prescribing, and few drug-free referrals are taking place. That is unacceptable and needs to change. The UK is becoming the easiest and cheapest place to get drugs, whether on the streets of Enfield in my constituency or on a wing of Pentonville or other prisons. We need to move away from simply providing treatment and towards management and recovery. We need to get away from the bureaucratic commissioning process that has led to just 3 per cent. of problematic drug users becoming drug-free. We also need to reform how we deal with criminal justice interventions, which are still leading to too much reoffending and too many damaged lives. We need to examine drug and alcohol problems and polydrug use in the round and realise that the evidence of the Home Office itself points to therapeutic communities as a way forward.
	Another matter that the Government did not touch on in the Queen's Speech was extradition, and particularly how it affects my constituent Gary McKinnon. It is welcome that the Home Secretary is considering the new medical evidence, which is compelling and significant. It deals not just with the risk of my constituent's health being affected by extradition to the United States, trial and detention, but with the fact that he has significant mental health problems aligned with his Asperger's syndrome. It is important that the Government and the Home Secretary take proper account of that evidence. I pay tribute to the Select Committee on Home Affairs for its work on the matter under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).
	It is important that the Home Secretary does not hide behind the previous court judgment. He needs to realise that he cannot simply ignore the fact that a prosecution could take place in-country, and he cannot simply say that the bar is far too high for the case to attract his discretion because of human rights concerns. We all recognise that extradition arrangements need to be in place to fight global crime and ensure that we are not a safe haven for criminals, but Gary McKinnon does not fall into that bracket. He is a vulnerable man who hacked into computers and is now at significant risk. His life is at risk, and in a recent case in the High Court, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton recognised that if extradition did not take place, Gary McKinnon could be prosecuted here.
	We also need to recognise the important principle of proportionality. That needs to be balanced to ensure that the mental health concerns that are now prevalent are taken properly into account. There is no assurance of bail and repatriation. Holland and Israel were able to reach an agreement on the matter, but this country has not, which has done a disservice to British citizens. We need to review the extradition treaty-and a new Government to do that-but with Gary McKinnon, who is a victim of an unbalanced process, we need to recognise that the medical reports give ample grounds to ensure that human rights can be played in his interests, as they need to be. He needs to stay in this country.
	Finally, reference has been made to victims. Victims may get some new legislation, but fundamentally, we need criminal justice reform, which will have to wait for a new Government.

Phil Wilson: I welcome the measures in the Gracious Speech because they will be good for Britain, the north-east of England and Sedgefield. I believe that they build on the successes of the Government over the past 12 years. This Government's record is built on proud achievements. When faced with an international crisis, they have stepped up to the plate and delivered.
	When I survey my constituency and see how it is coping with the global challenges that I see around us, I see that unemployment has risen since 2008, but that is still half what it was in the mid-1980s. I ask myself why. Is it because the recession is being left to run its course, or because smart government, not dogma, is getting us through it? In Sedgefield, about 19,000 pensioners receive the winter fuel allowance and 9,500 people receive tax credits. Is that because of an act of charity, or is it because of smart government acting on behalf of our society to look after the most vulnerable in it? In 1997 in County Durham, one in four young people who left school did so without a qualification; today the figure is just over one in 10, and beneath the national average. Is that a result of a whip-round by parents to buy extra books and pencils, or is it because of investment in children, schools and teachers, because this Government know that our children need to be properly equipped for the 21st century? An international survey of 10,000 health practitioners says that the NHS provides the best primary health care in the world. Is that a result of charity, or is it because of public investment in thousands more doctors and nurses by a Government who created the NHS and who believe that health care should be free at the point of need-a principle that is deep in the DNA of the Labour party and the Labour Government?
	The answer to all those questions is obviously smart government-this Government, who are guided by the principles of compassion, solidarity and an understanding that the wealth the economy creates is there for the many, not just the few.
	When I hear accusations of a broken society, I think back to the 18 years immediately before 1997. When we look at unemployment, it is only right that we remind ourselves of those times. Today, there are more than 2.5 million more people in work than in 1997, and about 1.5 million people on jobseeker's allowance. In the 1980s, more than 3 million people were claiming the equivalent benefit. Of those, 40 per cent. had been on the dole for 12 months and more.
	Youth unemployment is a worry to us all, but of 943,000 unemployed, more than 250,000 are full-time students. If we take those out, the unemployment rate for under-25s is just over 9 per cent. In the 1980s, it was 13 per cent., and in the 1990s, it was 12 per cent. Today, because of smart government, 70 per cent. of JSA recipients are back in work within six months.
	How can people say that we live in a broken society when the murder rate is at its lowest for the past 20 years, and when overall crime is down by 39 per cent. and violent crime by 41 per cent? How can we be in a broken society when more than 70 per cent. of adults volunteer at least once a year, and when three quarters of all 13 to 19-year-olds take part in sports or clubs or volunteer? A broken society is mentioned only by those who do not care about public services because they do not need to use them, and who say that charity is the answer because they know they will never need it.
	Charities have a role, but they can never be a substitute for smart government. Smart government gives millions of British people a fair deal. That is the responsibility of an elected Government; they must speak up for the needs of society and not outsource them. I always find that people who want to get the Government off their backs are usually those who think they can afford to be without the Government. They want to see less government and less regulation. But they are the first to come to the taxpayer if their business is going under or their bank has failed and wring their hands because regulation was after all too lax. Smart government says that the public and private sectors should work together, and that the people should always come first.
	There is of course an alternative. It is an alternative that says that instead of Building Schools for the Future, parents or a charity can rent an office block to set up a school. It is the alternative that says that 18 months for an operation is not too long to wait. It is the alternative that says it is the role of financial markets to make money out of other people's misery. It is the alternative that puts Britain on the fringes of Europe because it ignores the fact that 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and 3 million jobs depend on it. It is the world of little Britain, not Great Britain. It is the alternative that breaks cast-iron guarantees while the party that represents that alternative is still in opposition, where long may it remain. It is an alternative of a party whose shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) bizarrely says that it would be on the side of the NHS, when actually it is the party of a past in which patients waited six months for an appointment and two years for an operation. It is an alternative that thinks that the NHS is a mistake 60 years in the making. It is an alternative that will use the means test in reverse by saying to pensioners that they can have social care as long as they can put £8,000 up front. It is the alternative of a party whose leader said in his conference speech that
	"it falls to the modern Conservative Party to fight for the poorest".
	On hearing the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) say that on the television, I immediately changed over to the weather channel to see whether hell had indeed frozen over, because that will be the day that I will believe that statement.
	The Opposition are no longer just the Conservatives apparently: they are now progressive Conservatives. But how can they be progressive and conservative at the same time? I checked the "Oxford English Dictionary" to get a definition for both words. It defined progressive as "favouring change and innovation". For conservative, it said, "averse to change or innovation." So there we have it-a political philosophy that is a contradiction in terms, schizophrenic, Jekyll and Hyde, pulling one way then another, pointing in two directions at the same time, and just plain wrong.
	We know the Opposition: we met them on the street corner of the communities they closed down in the 1980s. We saw them turn their backs as child poverty soared under them. We heard them when they said that unemployment was a price worth paying. What they say and do are two different things-just look at their commitments and compare them with those of the Government. The first alternative policy they have to smart government is to reduce inheritance tax and give a £200,000 tax cut to each of the 3,000 richest estates. They will cut payments for people on incapacity benefit without investing in the measures needed to find them work. The Opposition put thousands of people on benefit when they were in power in the 1980s and 1990s, and a generation was lost. It was left to this Government to pick up the pieces, as we have been doing.
	The hon. Member for Tatton keeps saying that we are all in this together, but he wants people on modest incomes to take a pay freeze and work longer. It is easy to say that we are all in this together when you are a millionaire, can retire when you want to and do not have to worry about paying the bills. The Government have introduced a 50 per cent. tax rate for those earning more than £150,000 a year, because we do believe that we are all in this together.
	The right hon. Member for Witney blames "big government". In my view, it is just as well that our Government were big enough and smart enough to take the decisions to save the economy from total collapse. It is just as well that our Government are big enough and smart enough to fund 100,000 jobs for young people; help 300,000 families with their mortgages; and sign 200,000 agreements with businesses allowing them more time to pay their tax bills and keep people in work.
	The Opposition now claim that community is in their DNA. Well, it was not in their DNA when they were last in government, when real, long-term mass unemployment was evident on every street corner and plagued our communities. If community was not in their DNA then, it cannot be in their DNA now. Their DNA has done nothing but mutate into a split personality, saying one thing and doing another. But we know the truth. We are mending the broken society that they left behind. We know because we took the tough decisions that they opposed on the economy. We know the truth because Labour has built more than 100 new hospitals. There are hundreds of new or refurbished schools. In the north-east, deaths by heart disease have fallen by 58 per cent., and cancer deaths by 28 per cent. We still have much to do, but Labour's intent is clear: we are on the side of the people. The truth is that we created the NHS, but the Tories voted against it; we introduced the minimum wage, but the Tories voted against it; we created Sure Start, but the Tories voted against it; we stand for the many, but the Tories will stand by the few; we stand for fairness, but they will stand by the privileged. That is the choice that we face.
	I am optimistic about the future. We need a Government who are smart and big in character to face up to the future-and they are this Government. There are challenges ahead. If ever there was proof that we live in a globalised world, it was the turmoil in the global economy over the past year. People who live in the villages and towns in my constituency need to know that we will look after them in the future; that the benefits of a globalised economy will not pass them by; that the people who run the global economy and financial markets do not remain faceless gamblers and that what they get up to is transparent and accountable, and not socially useless; and that the major economies act in unison through the G20 and, if necessary, a Tobin tax is introduced to dampen down the casino economy and to provide a safe and stable world of savings and investment for ordinary people.
	As I look at the register of donors to the Conservative party, I see bankers, hedge fund managers, tycoons such as Lord Ashcroft and people who believe in a casino economy and who got us into this mess in the first place. I guess that they will vote for the Conservative party, because it represents their interests. That is another reason why I know that the Labour party will win the next election.

John Mason: I congratulate my neighbouring colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain), on an excellent maiden speech. I hope that he will be available to his constituents and take on some of the casework that I have been covering in recent months-I had to survive only three weeks of a campaign, but he had four or five months, which is extraordinary. He mentioned several important issues on which I hope he will press the Government, because there might be slight differences between him and his Front-Bench colleagues. For example, perhaps it is time that we saw an increase in the minimum wage. He suggested that a fiscal stimulus would help unemployment, whereas, I believe, his Front-Bench colleagues are planning cuts.
	I will concentrate on the proposal to abolish attendance allowance and disability living allowance for over-65s, which would affect 2.4 million vulnerable pensioners-1.6 million claiming attendance allowance and 800,000 living on DLA. We have received various reassurances from Ministers suggesting that people will receive similar services, rather than money. On Thursday, the Health Secretary said that
	"people will be guaranteed an equivalent level of support".-[ Official Report, 19 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 241.]
	"Equivalent level of support" could mean cash, home help or similar support in kind, and people are asking, "Which is it?" It is not good enough. That phrase is worrying a lot of people and I hope that we will receive some clarification. Clearly, the same money cannot be in two places at the same time, so increasing services in one area will mean cuts in payments in another area, and presumably the people who lose attendance allowance will not necessarily be the people who receive the new services.
	Attendance allowance and DLA do a lot of good. I shall quote from a briefing that I received from the Scottish Association for Mental Health. It provides several examples of how DLA and attendance allowance can be used to good effect, but we are short of time, so I shall limit how much I quote. It states:
	"Disability benefits and free personal care enable older people in Scotland to remain independent in the community, providing older people with a personal budget to help with their care and support needs. This could include covering the costs of a friend or family member coming to the home in the morning to help the person get out of bed, prepare meals or do shopping and cleaning. Any changes to disability benefits could affect the provision of this care and support and result in an older person needing more costly forms of social care in the home or lead to a person moving into residential care if they were not able to manage their household."
	SAMH gives similar examples:
	"Changes could increase the pressures on informal carers which could limit the opportunities of carers being able to work and therefore lead to them not contributing through the income tax system."
	The fear is of a lose-lose situation.
	The other concern is that I thought that we were aiming to support direct payments. In fact, the Welfare Reform Act 2009, which went through Committee only recently and which I was involved with, made some good statements in that direction. For example, clause 30 of the then Bill said:
	"The purpose of this Part is to enable disabled people aged 18 or over to exercise greater choice in relation to, and greater control over, the way in which relevant services...are provided to or for them".
	The idea is to move to giving people more control over their services, but if we abolish attendance allowance, it appears that there will be less control.
	What will happen to the money if DLA and attendance allowance are abolished for Scotland and Wales? Will it be handed over as a lump sum? If so, will the amount be based on need or on the Barnett formula of population? Will it be open to the devolved Governments to continue with attendance allowance in Scotland and Wales, even if they do not continue in England? Perhaps we could also have some clarification about whether only new claimants are affected, or will some of the current recipients lose benefits? There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about that, too. Can we have a clear statement from the Minister? I do not think that disabled pensioners and their carers should have to wait for clarification on that key issue.
	There is also the potential for an impact on carer's allowance, which is extremely low at the moment, at £53.10. However, what happens if carer's allowance is paid to someone who looks after a person receiving attendance allowance and attendance allowance is abolished? It seems bizarre to me that the party planning to cut benefits is the Labour party. That is the kind of thing that I would have expected from the Tories, who seem to be the ones trying to protect those benefits, although I do not entirely trust their version of events. That is a reverse from my younger days, perhaps 30 years ago, when Labour was to the left of the Tories. Many of my constituents now tell me that they cannot tell the difference. I fear that parts of the electorate still think that Labour is the party that will protect the poor and downtrodden, but when I hear things such as what I have described, it makes me wonder.
	Clearly there are overlaps between work and pensions and other aspects of the Queen's Speech, such as health. Another example is the minimum wage. If the Government are strapped for cash, why are we subsidising profitable employers to pay below a living wage? Tax credits are a good thing, because they boost the income of low earners. I certainly welcome that, but the Government's policies effectively mean that we are encouraging some employers to pay a wage that people cannot live on. I consider that to be immoral. If we are looking at benefits and encouraging people into work, part of the equation has to be increasing the minimum wage.
	Let me briefly discuss one or two other areas of concern that have been mentioned today. We certainly welcome the Child Poverty Bill. There has been a lot of support for the Bill from across the House, but there is concern that we will not be even halfway there by 2010-11. The Home Secretary said in opening this debate that he hoped to be there, but I do not think that he was widely believed. There are apparently no resources coming in to support the intention to abolish child poverty by 2020. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that there would be "real teeth" in the Bill, but I have seen no sign of teeth whatever. Indeed, I would like to see what those "real teeth" might be, and that is without mentioning the fact that taking child poverty down to only 10 per cent. is hardly abolishing it.
	I do not want to spend much time on immigration, but it has been mentioned once or twice. There are just a couple of points that I would like to make, the first of which is about bogus colleges. We need action on that issue, on which there is agreement across the House. The colleges in my area, including John Wheatley college, which covers an area that I share with the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-East, are concerned about the issue, as I know Scottish colleges will be in future.
	At the same time, while there is concern about people coming in in an uncontrolled manner, my experience is that the Border Agency can be extremely strict with a lot of people. As I have mentioned before, a pipe band from Pakistan was refused entry and I know that a number of people from north America who had been well funded to work with the homeless in Glasgow, for example, or who had come to speak at a Christian conference have been sent right back from the airport. Yes, we need border controls, but there also needs to be flexibility. I echo the point made previously that Scotland's population is such that we would welcome more people coming in and boosting our economy.
	The final area I want to touch on briefly is the Calman commission, which I believe is an omission from the Queen's Speech. Whether it was there in the original version or not is a matter for debate, but the reality is that there is no firm commitment by the Government to take forward the Calman commission's proposals, despite the fact that many of them could very easily be brought into being. Sir Kenneth Calman himself said of his report:
	"I think there are a lot of bits, as I mentioned, which I think can be implemented quickly and easily without too much fuss, others will take a bit of time to think through."
	I appeal to the Government, where there is agreement across the board, not to leave matters until after the election, which will only cause delay. Let us act sooner rather than later.
	The drink-driving limit is one example. Clearly, there is an alcohol problem in Glasgow and the west of Scotland and I know that it exists south of the border as well. Minimum pricing has been mentioned, which we certainly welcome and encourage for Scotland. I hope that the hon. Lady and others who have spoken in support of this measure will speak to their colleagues in Scotland and encourage them to support it, too. If Northern Ireland can have separate limits for drink-driving, surely it would be helpful if we moved quickly so that Scotland can take a lead, as I argued earlier that it has on other issues.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The time limit on speeches will be reduced from now onwards to 10 minutes.

Stephen Hepburn: I congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain), who has unfortunately had to leave, having been in the Chamber all afternoon waiting patiently for his turn, as we all have. He made an excellent maiden speech-one of the best I have ever heard. Many people were in their places to hear it and a great deal of interest was created, which bodes well for a great future.
	The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who was in the Chair at the time, was listening avidly, as I was, for mention of my hon. Friend's sporting interests. Mr. Deputy Speaker was particularly interested in hearing about cricket, to see whether my hon. Friend would be attracted by the Commons cricket club, which the right hon. Gentleman runs, while I was waiting to hear whether he said anything about football so that I could involve him as a Glaswegian in the parliamentary football club.
	I was reminded that next Tuesday the parliamentary football team, which has many distinguished Members from both sides of the House, is playing its annual fixture against the chefs of the House. The great Glaswegian player Kenny Dalglish is coming along. I had a word in my hon. Friend's ear, but I was most disappointed when he turned around and said, "I don't play football too well." The Labour party had better sort out its selection practices if we are not getting decent sportsmen into the Commons to fill our teams to play against other teams for charity.
	I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who summed up why people should vote Labour at the next general election. He summed up what we have done over the years and exactly how this most gracious Queen's Speech will build on that. I was most impressed with my hon. Friend's speech. He went through so much that it made me wonder which constituency-not in the geographical sense, but in the sense of a group of people-would be voting for the Opposition at the next election. He mentioned pensioners and I wondered whether they would want to throw away the winter fuel allowance, the help with their TV licences and their bus passes. I do not think so. Pensioners are far too wise; they have been through the Tory period and seen what the Tories have done.
	One Opposition Member said today that we keep going on about the past-we like to remind people once or twice-whereas the Opposition want to talk about the future. However, people cannot be told to look into the crystal ball when they have already read the book and know what the Opposition have been up to.
	Among local government workers, who will vote for the Opposition? All the secondary schools in this country are being rebuilt. In contrast, let us look at the state of the schools before this Government came into office-the size of the classrooms, the state of the equipment. Now look at the excellent work going on. Which parent who remembers going to school during the 18 years of Tory Government will turn round and say, "Oh, no, I don't like all these changes. It's too extravagant for me. I want to go back to having a leaky roof. I don't want a computer, I just want to go and write on a bit of paper." They will never do that in a million years.
	I admit that the Government have disappointed me in one area of social policy: antisocial behaviour. They have not gone as far as I would have liked. We all have antisocial behaviour in our communities, and we are trying hard to stop that blight. However, if we ask people in working-class communities such as Jarrow, Tyneside, Teesside, Durham and other parts of the country why we have that blight, they will say that it goes back to the past.
	In the past, when those young kids who had a bit of cheek-we all remember the cheeky one in our classrooms-and the tough lads left school at 16, they went into the pits, shipyards and steelworks. They were not condemned to a lifetime on the dole, of nothing. They were not thrown out and told, "You're not wanted, you're nothing." They were taken in. On their first day in the workplace, they were put under adult supervision-the supervision of people who were respected in their own communities and who looked after their communities. Yes, they policed their own communities. They were a great hand to the police, because when young kids knocked around the corner, somebody would tell their father in work, and he would speak to someone else in work. Those kids would not be around the next week; they would be out doing something better, or they would be in the house.
	We have not done as much as we could have on antisocial behaviour, social problems and crime in this country, but people in communities such as mine still refer all those problems back to the dreadful 18 years when they were cast out to despair.
	The Gracious Speech rightly says that the Government are committed to giving everyone a chance and giving everyone fairness, and that more measures will be brought forward to complement those in the Gracious Speech. I want to raise one issue that is immensely important to workers of today, pensioners of today, and pensioners of tomorrow: pleural plaques. As the Minister knows, many of us have campaigned for a substantial period of time to get the dreadful decision of the Law Lords overturned, to ensure that pleural plaques sufferers, both now and in the future, have the rightful compensation that they enjoyed for so long.
	Members on both sides of the House know that justice takes persistence and time, and requires us to break down the opposition of vested interests and other objections. Battling bureaucracies, building alliances and lobbying Ministers is part of the job of MPs, no matter which side they sit on. We have all taken up causes on behalf of constituents or groups of people. Our job is about representing ordinary people whose voice would otherwise not be heard. That is why it is so important to raise the issue of pleural plaques sufferers in today's debate. I make no apology for continuing to campaign, along with other Members, and continuing to try to overturn that disgraceful and unjust decision by the Law Lords to bar this terrible illness from classification as a designated illness for compensation purposes.
	Pleural plaques are a scarring of the lung tissue. They are caused mainly by negligent exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Although it is mostly the worker himself who has developed the condition as a result of exposure to asbestos, his family may have developed it as well. When the worker took his work clothes home and hung them up, the baby in the cot or the older son who had come home from school and was doing his homework may have breathed in the bits of fibre on the overalls. It is well known that a substantial number of such people, who are now grown up, have pleural plaques merely because of exposure of that kind. Moreover, it is estimated that pleural plaques sufferers are 1,000 times more likely than any other section of society to develop a more serious form of asbestos-related cancer.
	For over 20 years, the courts recognised that this was a compensatable illness. Everyone accepted that, and the insurers and the Government put money aside, until this dreadful decision by the Law Lords. One of the sorriest aspects of the case was that the Law Lords agreed with the lawyers who said that pleural plaques did not constitute a compensatable injury and did not cause any sort of depression or illness.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.

David Davies: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) was making some very interesting points towards the end of his speech. It is a shame that they were overshadowed by the rather silly ones with which he began. He started off with a bit of a history lesson. "Take me back 18 years," he said. I will take him back 18 years, to the winter of discontent-to the last time Labour had been in power for a number of years. Just like the current Labour Government, they left the country socially and economically on the brink of utter bankruptcy.
	I should be happy to take the hon. Gentleman even further back, to when Harold Wilson devalued our pound by 15 or 20 per cent. but told people that "the pound in their pocket" was worth the same as before. Or we could go back 40 or 50 years, to Clement Attlee building his new Jerusalem on the back of American war loans. I can go back as far in history as the hon. Gentleman likes, but I will find that history always teaches us the same thing: that Labour Governments always end in financial disaster, and that a Conservative Government are required to put things right once again.
	Earlier, we heard the Home Secretary talk of statistics and quote the British crime survey. The BCS is nothing more than an opinion poll, and a very inaccurate one at that. It does not include crimes committed by people under the age of 16, and it certainly does not include the hospital statistics-which, surprisingly, were referred to by a member of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Those statistics clearly show that a large number of very violent crimes-knife crimes-are going unreported because people are too scared or unwilling to go to the police.
	We do not need to open our newspapers and see a former Home Secretary cavorting around the streets of London in a bullet-proof vest to know that crime is out of control. We do not need to observe, day after day, the toll of young people being knifed and gunned down on our streets to know that something is wrong. The British people have enough common sense.
	If the hon. Member for Jarrow wants to know who will vote for the Conservative party at the next general election, I can tell him that it will be all those who are concerned about crime. It will be all those who think that we need less political correctness in the police force-fewer people telling police officers, as they have in one part of the country, that they should not say "Good morning" or "Good afternoon" because it might be construed as being racist. Yes, that is really happening, as can be seen from last week's issue of  Jane's Police Review.
	We need people to stand up and say, as Conservative Members have, that it is utterly wrong that people are released from prison halfway through their sentences, or, more usually, before they have even reached the halfway point-regardless of what crimes they may have committed, and regardless of whether they have shown any signs of wanting to behave better in prison than they did on the outside. I say to Liberal Democrat Members that prison is working, prison is effective and prison is cheap. I could show that using the Government's own statistics. It is far cheaper to keep somebody in prison than have them running around on the streets committing one crime after another, and it is far better for the victims of crime, too.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman intervened on a colleague of mine earlier, who pointed out that 92 per cent. of young male first-time offenders reoffend. Is that success?

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that before any young offender goes to prison, they are given numerous warnings and reprimands, and they are given one community sentence after another. They go to prison only because all those interventions have failed, and failed miserably.  [Interruption.] Well, prison does not fail, in fact, because prison keeps them off the streets after they have been given a dozen chances, and means that the law-abiding public are kept safe.
	I hope that the next Government-of whichever party-will consider getting rid of the Human Rights Act 1998 and replacing it with something that protects the law-abiding public of this country, because it is disgraceful that drug addicts going into prison can now sue the prison authorities because they have to go through cold turkey as they cannot get their heroin, and that other drug addicts who develop their habit in prison sue the prison authorities because they have become hooked inside. It is also disgraceful that Muslim schoolgirls who do not like the school uniform can take their school to court and get given hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, and that members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda-there are seven al-Qaeda members on the United Nations list living openly in this country on benefits-are told that they can stay here because otherwise their human rights would be breached. It is disgraceful, too, that a rapist from Sierra Leone was told he could not be deported back to Sierra Leone, despite the fact that he had committed numerous offences against women, because that might breach his rights to a family life. That is what the Human Rights Act, that this Government passed, has done for us. We should tear it up and replace it with something that will protect the general public.

David Taylor: I cannot be the only Member who finds it rather spooky that as soon as political correctness is mentioned, as if by magic the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) appears in the doorway and enters the Chamber.
	I want, however, to ask the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) if he was saying he would abandon the concept of remission for prison sentences, and if so, how he would handle the bad behaviour that would result if there was no longer the incentive of remission.

David Davies: I am more than happy to discuss that when time permits, as I have many views on prisons, but I want to mention immigration now, as so many among our political classes are afraid to do so.
	Our failure to mention immigration has led to extremist parties-I do not call them far-right parties because they are, in fact, socialist parties-gaining seats in Parliaments in other places. That has happened because we have been scared to stand up and say what all our constituents are saying to us, which is, very simply, that people who come to this country should learn English and be expected to work and to fit in with our rules, culture and traditions.
	We should not be changing the law to suit other people. It is absolutely wrong that we changed our benefits rules to recognise polygamy. It is wrong, too, that we turned a blind eye to forced marriage and female genital mutilation. A Member spoke about this earlier, and praised the Government for the law that was passed in 2003. I was not a Member then, but I can imagine the scene: 600 Members of Parliament, probably all wearing white ribbons, getting up and saying female genital mutilation is wrong and we must do something about it. Since then, however, absolutely nothing has been done about it. At great expense, the Metropolitan police set up some sort of taskforce. I asked two years ago how many people it had investigated and how many it had actually convicted. Answer came there none. Eventually, the matter had to go to the Information Commissioner, and I finally got back the weasel answer that just one person in five or six years had been investigated and no prosecutions had been brought.
	The situation is the same in respect of forced marriage. We know from talking to local authorities that hundreds of girls under the age of 16 are disappearing from school rolls. We suspect they are being taken back to parts of south-east Asia and forced into marriage, but very little is done about it. A tiny work force based at the Foreign Office-the forced marriage unit-are looking into this: a handful of people trying to deal with thousands of cases. I believe that the real reason why so little is done is because the Government are afraid of upsetting the community leaders in certain minority groups. For all the Government's talk about equal rights and standing up for women and minorities, they are not really interested in any of it; they are interested only in getting votes.
	This is why we should be talking about immigration and about the bogus colleges. If the Home Secretary, who is no longer in his place, wants to find out where all the bogus colleges are, all he has to do-I have pointed this out to him before-is look at all the colleges that are offering courses other than in the English language and which have more than 50 per cent. of their make-up comprising foreign nationals. That is an almost certain indicator of a bogus college. I have pointed out other benefit scams to Ministers on previous occasions, but they have no interest in going in there to sort any of these matters out.
	For 12 or 13 years now, we have put up with this Government of political correctness. In April, we will have another chance: the people-the law-abiding, tax-paying voters of this country-will have a chance to boot out the Government of politically correct policies and elect people who believe in common sense, fair play and delivering value for money. I look forward to that day coming soon.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Dr. Phyllis Starkey.

Phyllis Starkey: I think that you have a certain sense of humour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in asking to me to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). Unsurprisingly, I am not sure that he and I share the same culture or values. I certainly do not share his astonishing assertions about the Human Rights Act 1998, which simply betray his lack of understanding of the way in which it incorporated within UK law a convention that was signed long ago and to which I hope every civilised Government throughout the world would adhere. However, I am grateful to him for demonstrating what the Conservative party is really like; had the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) been in the Chamber, I imagine that he would have been blushing even redder than he was at Prime Minister's questions at the way in which his veneer of compassionate conservatism was being dragged aside so that we could see the real face of the Tory party. I hope and imagine that the voters will not be as deceived as the right hon. Gentleman perhaps wishes them to be.
	The issue that I wish to discuss is addressed in the Crime and Security Bill and is of enormous concern to my constituents. I am talking about wheel-clamping and the proposals to get to grips, finally, with the cowboy wheel clampers who operate on private land. This issue-the control of the private security industry-was one of the first campaigns that I took up when I got elected to this place. I was trying to campaign for the licensing of door supervisors-more popularly known as "bouncers". At the time, they were licensed separately by local authorities and there was no national scheme. I am pleased that this Government did eventually introduce the Security Industry Authority, which has licensed many aspects of the private security industry, including door supervisors. That has brought a degree of order to the industry, and has vastly improved protection for members of the public and standards across the industry. However, one aspect remains unregulated and that is wheel-clamping on private land.
	Obviously, owners of private land have every right to stop people parking on their land-that is clearly unarguable-but there has been an upsurge of problems in my constituency, particularly in Bletchley, in the south of the constituency, on a number of sites in the centre where it is not at all obvious to people that they are on private land. In the case of one major site, nobody had asserted ownership rights for some years and it had, in effect, been used as a public car park, even though it was private land-the site is adjacent to an actual public car park.
	The building that was in the car park was converted into residential flats and the private owner, thus, hired a wheel-clamping firm to assert his right to stop people parking on that land. Consequently, many of my constituents who had been in the habit of parking unmolested on the land were suddenly subject to wheel-clamping, and the way in which those wheel clampers operated is wholly outrageous. There was virtually no signage, and the signs that there were measured 12 inches by 15 inches and were written in black on red-the most unreadable combination. The car clampers used to loiter around the corner, waiting for people to park and leave their vehicle before leaping out and shoving on the car-clamping device.
	The clampers behaved in an appalling way to drivers, and among the various people who have contacted me are innumerable pensioners who have had their cars clamped and had money demanded from them. One individual was with his wife, who suffers from type 1 diabetes. As a result of the stress, she started to have a hypoglycaemic episode. The car clampers insisted on their money while the man's wife fell on to the floor and into a coma. He was phoning an ambulance on his mobile phone while trying to continue the altercation with the car clampers over the money and over the fact that they would not release the clamp so that he could at least take his wife to hospital. Another constituent, an elderly pensioner, had an asthma attack as a result of the stress caused by the actions of these individuals. One of the other car parks is connected to residential flats but is right next door to the job centre. A couple of people who were going to the job centre had their car clamped in the car park, too.
	So, there is poor signage, the appalling way in which the wheel clampers have behaved and the fact that they have demanded payments in cash. They have allowed people to pay by another method in only a tiny number of cases, and that other method involves walking to the nearest cash machine with the car clampers to get the money out and give it to them. Some people who did not have enough money on them or who did not have their card have been forced to walk home to get the money and to come back to get their car released. The fine has been extortionate-they have been demanding £150 from people when, in some cases, cars have been parked for only about four minutes before they have been clamped.
	It is understandable that my constituents have become increasingly outraged and that my local newspaper, the  Milton Keynes Citizen, has taken up the campaign and has helped to co-ordinate the information that we have gathered from across the constituency. I have been feeding that information through to Ministers to strengthen their commitment to introducing regulation to control the private wheel clampers.
	I want to reiterate the measures that are essential to the regulations. First, there must be clear signage of sufficient size and clarity, so that people know before they go on to the land that they are driving on to private land. Obviously, if drivers know that they are likely to get a penalty, on their own head be it. Secondly, there must be a cash limit on the level of fine that such individuals can apply. Thirdly, they must not be able to demand it in cash. There must be facilities for people to pay by card. Fourthly, a proper receipt must be given that records the place and time, the name of the operator and the address of the firm responsible so that individuals can check whether the firm is licensed with the Security Industry Authority. Finally, there must be a clear and independent appeals mechanism, as there is for parking fines when people park in council car parks, to ensure that the fines are operating reasonably. I hope that Ministers will be able to assure me that all that can be included.
	I cannot give up the opportunity to make two or three other remarks on some of the issues that came up earlier in the debate that relate to various parts of the Home Office. First, I want to take this opportunity to say that my constituents have greatly valued many of the improvements that have been introduced in policing, in particular neighbourhood policing. Neighbourhood policing and community support officers have made a huge difference to the way in which low-level but extremely annoying crime is detected and dealt with in the neighbourhoods around Milton Keynes. It is still improving as it beds down, but it has been immensely valuable.
	The second issue is CCTV. A while ago, there was a particularly nasty murder in my constituency. A group of youths were fighting and one of them was killed, and CCTV was invaluable not only in convicting the youths who were responsible but for absolving some of the other youths milling about in the fracas and who were not responsible for the fatal incident. It needs to be said that CCTV is a valuable adjunct to crime detection, both for convicting people and for absolving the innocent. I have certainly had evidence of that in my constituency.
	Finally, I want to say a word about statistics, which have been very misused. I reiterate the need that MPs and others must have some mathematical education, as many people here seem to be completely innumerate. The initiative to improve the way we deal with domestic violence is bound to lead to an increase in the numbers of detected crimes of domestic violence. That will be a good thing. The initiative will not increase the rate of domestic violence but it will encourage people to report it, in the knowledge that incidents will be taken seriously. Exactly the same thing has happened with hate crime: because if people are assured that they will be taken seriously, they are more likely to report incidents of hate crime. The statistics suggest that the incidence of hate crime has gone up, but that is because we have recognised the problem, not because it is happening more often.

Charles Walker: I am terrified to be following my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), as I want to speak about prison reform. I am aware that many people in prison fully deserve to be there because they have committed heinous crimes. I do not argue that prison does not work-it does, as people in prison are not on the street committing crimes-but too often we see the revolving door in action. We see people go to prison for a period of time, leave prison, and within a year 48 per cent. have reoffended and many of those people are back in prison. In the case of youngsters, as many as 75 per cent. reoffend within a year and end up back in prison.
	That is not good value for the taxpayer. The prison population is a captive audience, and that means that we must do something with them. I know that some progress has been made in that direction, but a great deal more remains to be done. Some 50 per cent. of prisoners have literacy and numeracy rates that are lower than an 11-year-old's, and they are simply incapable of functioning in the real world. A survey found that half of all prisoners were not qualified to do 96 per cent. of the jobs available outside prison, in the community. So we really must do something with the people who are in prison: we need to work on them to make them better people and to allow them to become fulfilled people able to turn their backs on crime.
	When I came to Parliament, I was not a very moderate or relaxed person. I very much believed that people in prison fully deserved to be there, for as long and as often as possible, but 10 per cent. of our current prison population-a total of 8,000 people-formerly served in our armed forces. These are people who made significant sacrifices for this country, so why are they now in prison? How did we let them down so badly that they ended up there? Many more will follow unless we do something about the problem. We in this place know that many young men who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent history are now in prison. Somewhere, therefore, we are letting those brave young people down, and it is a scandal that 8,000 current prisoners used to be in our armed forces.
	Furthermore, prisons have become warehouses for the mentally ill. We closed down the asylums 30 years ago and moved many of the people into prisons. Some 40 or 50 per cent. of prisoners have undiagnosed mental health problems. I am not saying that people with mental health problems cannot do bad things. Of course they can. However, I am saying that mental health problems can be a significant contributory factor to people making the wrong choices in life, and consistently making the wrong choices in life.
	Prison will not be a deterrent to an undiagnosed or untreated schizophrenic, so when we have people in prison who are ill, let us do something to help them. Let us do something to make them better. Every year that they spend in prison costs taxpayers £40,000. As my hon. Friend pointed out, if we let prisoners out unreformed and untreated, they do a lot more damage in society for the period that they are out of prison, then they go back to prison time and again and cost us a further £40,000 each time. This is not good enough.
	My hon. Friend also pointed out that many prisoners suffer from drug addiction problems, and we know that drug addiction leads people to commit serious criminal offences. The scandal is that more people come out of prison as drug addicts than go in, so we need treatment programmes in prison to ensure that we clean these people up and get them to a position where they can go back into society, hold down a responsible job and start giving back to the community, as opposed to taking away from the community. That is why it is so important that when people are in prison, we do something with them on the educational and training front. We must give them the skills that they require to go and compete in the jobs market.
	I am all in favour of building more prisons in the short to medium term, because unless we relieve prison overcrowding, we will not be able to address the underlying causes of reoffending. When prisons are overcrowded, it becomes purely a management issue for prison officers and the governors, as opposed to a rehabilitation issue. So let us, in the short to medium term, build more prisons so that we can start to have the space in the criminal justice system to rehabilitate people back into society, instead of sending out better criminals. Indeed, it is debatable whether we are sending out better criminals. To get into prison in the first place, they have to be caught, so they are not learning their skills from particularly bright operators.
	It is important, going ahead, that as we clean up our communities and make society a safer place, we start to address seriously the revolving door of prison. Let us be sure that when people go to prison for a significant period, we use that time to make that prisoner a better person. Certainly, punish them. Having their liberty removed is a punishment. For many of these people, going to drug treatment classes-

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the comments from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). If prisoners are showing evidence that they are benefiting from rehabilitation and their behaviour is improving, does he believe that the concept of remission of sentence should be retained in the Prison Service? His colleague seemed to suggest that it should be abandoned.

Charles Walker: I am not here to fall out with any colleague. Parole for good behaviour is positive. If people go to prison for five years and are then told that they will serve six years unless they demonstrate good behaviour, the switch is to a negative approach to managing prisoners. We need a rewards-based system, and good behaviour should result in early release-not obscenely early release, but certainly early release. I am not arguing for a softer approach to prisoners. I believe that we should be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Right now we are not being tough on the causes of crime because we are not addressing low educational attainment, addiction rates or mental health problems.
	I know that time is short, so I shall conclude. We have to be brave in promoting prison reform. There are not a lot of votes in it for any of us, but it is the right thing to do, because we want to make the communities that we represent safer places. When we keep turning back out into these communities criminals who are unreformed, who remain violent, who remain ill, who remain addicted, they are just as dangerous or even more dangerous than before we sent them to prison. So I hope all Members will approach prison reform with open-mindedness and courage. If we get it right in the long term, there will be a consequential saving to taxpayers, and our communities will be safer places in which to live.

Lynne Jones: I am very glad to be following the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), as I am certainly more on his wavelength than that of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies).
	One thing that has always dismayed me during my time as a Member of this House is the misuse or ignoring of evidence in order to justify unjustifiable policies. One particularly bad example involves drugs policies, and both Front Benches are guilty in that regard. That is not what I intend to talk about today, however. I want to concentrate on a particularly bad example of the misuse of statistics.
	On 13 November, articles about household benefits appeared in a number of the tabloids. The  Daily Express carried the headline "Shameless Labour. Toll of families on £15,000 benefits doubles to 1.2 million since Labour came to power". The article went on to say:
	"Last night, critics described the massive handouts as a grim indictment of the flourishing welfare dependency culture fostered by Gordon Brown. The statistics sparked new anger about the growing burden on the working population, having to pay for claimants languishing in a lifetime of taxpayers-subsidised indolence."
	In the article, housing benefit, incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance were all described as "handouts". Only at the end of the article was it mentioned that the figures included pensioners, the disabled and people caring for the elderly and infirm.
	Another tabloid, the  Daily Mail, had the headline "Benefits Britain". The article went on to say:
	"The number of families raking in more than £12,000 a year in benefits has trebled since Labour came to power, figures showed yesterday. Britain's culture of spiralling welfare dependency means 300,000 households now receive that figure or more in benefits-up from 100,000 in 1997. A worker would have to earn £27,000 a year to take home £20,000."
	The headline in  The Sun was "300,000 coin £20k in benefit bonanza", with the newspaper suggesting that that was more than many workers take home. Even the  Daily Mirror agreed:
	"The number of families on £20,000 a year in welfare handouts has risen threefold".
	The source of these stories was information obtained from a written parliamentary question from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who was extensively quoted in the aforementioned articles as saying:
	"These figures show the shocking growth of a dependency culture under Labour. The Government needs to get to grips with Britain's benefit culture and radically reform our welfare system. It's hardly surprising that so many people spend their lives on benefits when in some cases they can get as much on benefits as many people earn in work."
	But the figures do not show a shocking growth in dependency. They are taken from the family resources survey, and they are rounded to the nearest 100,000 of population. It is not therefore valid, for example, to describe a change from 100,000 to 200,000 as a doubling. Those figures could mask a change from 149,000 to 151,000, which is hardly a change at all. As the Library specialist told me, it is better to look at the percentage of households for which the change is less dramatic, if it exists at all.
	Let us first look at the number of households that said that they receive more than £15,000. Based on rounded-up survey samples in 1997-98, there were about 600,000 such households, equating to 3 per cent. of all households, of which 500,000 had at least one member of working age. By 2007-08, the overall numbers had, indeed, doubled to 1.2 million, or 4 per cent. of households, but the figure for household members of working age had not increased significantly at all: it was still about 600,000, or 2 per cent. of households.
	If there was any story from those figures, it was the large increase in the number of pensioner households that receive benefits of more than £15,000 per annum. The number had increased from 100,000 to 600,000 during the period in question. That is not a twofold or threefold increase, but a sixfold increase, so why did the right hon. Member for Maidenhead not congratulate the Government on helping the most vulnerable pensioners, those with disabilities and extensive care needs? The headline should have read "Labour pride", not "Labour shame".
	On the numbers of households receiving more than £20,000, the figures are so low as to be meaningless. The table from the written answer on the number of households with persons of working age gives the following percentages: 1997-98, 1 per cent.; 1998-99, 1 per cent.; 1999-2000, 0 per cent.; 2000-01, 0 per cent.; 2001-02, 1 per cent.; 2003-04, 1 per cent.; 2004-05, 1 per cent.; 2005-06, 1 per cent.; 2006-07, 1 per cent.; and 2007-08, 1 per cent. Only if pensioner households are included does the percentage rise to 2 per cent. or 3 per cent.
	There is a similar story on housing benefit. The Tories have put out scare stories about the increase in the housing benefit bill, but given that the number of social homes has decreased by 1 million since 1995, making more people dependent on the private sector, it is not surprising that the bill has gone up.
	I think that I have established beyond doubt that the Opposition are not averse to misusing statistics. Their leader did so in his speech to their party conference, maligning the Labour Government on poverty while conveniently forgetting the huge rise in poverty under the Tories. Thank God they have not been in power through the recent recession.
	It is particularly odious to misuse statistics in a way that pillories vulnerable people and panders to the lowest form of populism. We have seen the Tories recently put about completely unwarranted scare stories about the Government taking away disability living allowance and attendance allowance from pensioners. Then the next day, as I have shown, the same people-those pensioners-are portrayed as undeserving and a part of the dependency culture.
	The Tories have tried to portray themselves as caring and honest, but in reality we see that they are still the nasty party, with the hon. Member for Monmouth being the exemplar par excellence.

Nadine Dorries: The speeches that we have heard today have oscillated between both ends of the spectrum in terms of quality, and this evening I will attempt to make my own small contribution.
	I was incredibly disappointed with the Home Office aspect of the Crime and Security Bill, because I should very much have liked it to cover two particular areas: the UK's current drug problems, about which there should have been greater detail; and the lack of trust between the police and the community.
	I begin by talking about the drug problems that we face in the UK. The charity Addaction estimates that drug-related crime costs this country £110 billion a year. Of course, it is almost impossible to calculate the actual cost because there is a huge personal cost in terms of families, lost lives, and children and teenagers who become addicted to drugs and then go on to have lives that are meaningless. The figure of £110 billion is incredibly large-although it may even be on the conservative side-given the economic crisis and the Government's having to look at public spending in various Departments. One would therefore have thought the Bill might do something to deal with the problem.
	Let us look at what the Government's strategy has been over the past 12 years. Shortly after they came to power, they introduced a 10-year strategy to combat the misuse of drugs. Ten years later, they issued another strategy that was almost identical to the first one. It was about maintaining and containing the drugs problem. It was not about dealing with or reducing the problem, but managing it. That is borne out by the number of methadone prescriptions, which have gone up by 71 per cent. In 2007, there were 1 million prescriptions; in 2008, there were 1.8 million. That huge increase proves in itself that the whole strategy is about maintenance.
	We know-because it has been proven by a rehabilitation centre in Stevenage that has a 70 per cent. success rate-that the only way to deal with a young person's drug problem is abstinence. That means putting them into rehabilitation, removing their source of drugs, making them go through cold turkey, and giving them the support that they need. That has never been this Government's policy; despite its being a proven treatment method that works, it has never been adopted. Yet they are also the Government who declassified cannabis and then reclassified it as a class A drug. Their message to young people has been one of total confusion. They say, "Cannabis is not as serious as we thought it was. Oh yes, whoops, sorry, it is-we're going to reclassify it as class A. We're not going to do anything about treatment for the addiction or about the people at the school gate, the drug pushers, peddlers and pimps-we're just going to up the number of methadone prescriptions and give people an alternative to the drugs that they've been taking all this time." That is not a solution, and it is part of what is breaking down our society.
	When I recently visited Styal women's prison, every single offender was in there for a drug-related crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) talked about the need to create more prisons. If we dealt with the drug problem properly-in a way that worked, using abstinence and rehabilitation on a day-care or residential basis-we would not need to build extra prisons because the drug-related crime numbers would fall and we would not need those extra spaces. The financial cost of crime would also be reduced considerably, and we would be a much better society as a result. It is not only about the young people whose lives are lost as a result of drugs, but about the people who are victims of the crimes committed in pursuit of the drugs needed to sustain a habit.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are 5.5 million crimes in which the characters who committed them have been caught and punished, but 4.5 million criminals are not yet caught? That is the problem.

Nadine Dorries: I absolutely agree. That is partly why it is so difficult to calculate the true extent of the problem. However, the figures that my hon. Friend quoted, and other figures, reveal the depth of the problem that we are dealing with.
	It is a shame that in their final Gracious Speech, the Government have produced a Bill that deals with clamping and antisocial behaviour, but not with the worst antisocial behaviour that we face, which is a result of the drug problem. It is a huge shame that they have missed this golden opportunity to make a better society and deal with a problem that they have tried, and failed comprehensively, to deal with over the past 12 years. It was a golden opportunity to say to the people of the nation, "We understand the drug problem. We understand that there are many victims of crime as a result of drugs, so we are going to produce some really good treatment programmes, such as abstinence."
	I wish to touch on the erosion of the community's trust in the police. That may be because of the de Menezes shooting or police storming into the offices of an MP without a search warrant or permission in a politically motivated manner. It may be because the police are arresting people to take DNA without their permission. No Home Office Bill can be implemented without the people having trust in the police. Without communities working with the police, there is almost no point in bringing forward a Home Office Bill, because it will be impossible to implement.
	What can we do to improve trust in the police? We can make them more accountable to the people. When I write to my chief constable with a complaint from a constituent, somebody else writes back to me-an allocated department or another officer. Nobody in the police is accountable to the general public on a day-to-day, issue-by-issue basis.
	The Crime and Security Bill would have been fantastic if it had somewhere in it the introduction of an elected police commissioner or some way of making the police accountable to the people. The argument that Labour Members frequently give is that that would mean politicisation of the police, and that if we bring politics into the police force at local level we will be doomed. However, the announcement by the Association of Chief Police Officers this weekend that it wanted to introduce a register of men who have been reported for committing two or more domestic violence attacks was politicisation. It shows the police acting in a political manner and considering something that will appease the Government of the day. It is not a policy that says, "Let's introduce something that will get rid of all the drug pushers at the school gates at 4 o'clock every day."
	So why not use the Bill to bring in elected police commissioners, for whom people could go to the polls to vote at the same time as voting for us? Then when something went wrong in a particular area and the MP or the general public wanted to hold someone to account, they could go to that directly elected commissioner. He or she in turn could hold the local police board to account. We do not have that, and it is another golden opportunity missed in the Bill.
	In my constituency, I suffer with the problem of clamping, which is covered in the Bill, on residential streets as well as in areas owned by the local authority. People come to my surgery on a weekly basis with stories of hardship about how they have been dealt with. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, people who do not have the financial wherewithal to pay the £150 on-the-spot fine can suffer hardship as a result. Once they pay the fine, some cannot keep their car, and some may not be able to keep their job. They are people who are living on the edge and trying to keep together their home and livelihood, and they find themselves suddenly having to pay £150 to get their car back. If they have to borrow that money as they do not have it that day, the cost escalates and is ramped up. If the Bill is used to protect those people from that hardship, that will be a good move. However, that is the only thing in the Bill that I can see will be of any particular use to people who are looking for something to make their life a little more crime-free and a little easier.
	I will therefore sit down and bemoan the fact that the Government have not even acknowledged that abstinence programmes work, and that they have not put anything in the Bill to point up that directly elected police commissioners would be a good idea and something to debate in the House. I hope they use the Bill to produce something to make people's lives better which, ironically, would be on the issue of the clamping of cars.

Theresa May: The subjects of today's debate on the Loyal Address affect the day-to-day lives of our constituents across the country: crime and disorder, antisocial behaviour, worklessness, benefit dependency and violence against women. Those issues blight too many lives, and the challenges must be addressed by the next Government, but that requires change. Above all, the Queen's Speech and this debate have shown that this Government understand neither the need for change nor the depth of change needed, and they certainly do not have the vision or ideas to do what is necessary to tackle those issues.
	The debate was marked, as expected in a debate on the Queen's Speech, by the variety of issues that have been addressed by hon. Members. It was also notable for the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain), who unfortunately is no longer in the Chamber. Making a maiden speech is daunting enough for new Members following a general election, but at least at that time there is some safety in numbers. Making a maiden speech is far more daunting and lonely for new Members who come in following a by-election, but I think he passed with flying colours. It was clear from his speech that he has immense pride in the fact that he is representing his home constituency. He spoke with wit and humour, and we look forward to hearing much more from him in future.
	The debate was ably opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who forensically identified the ways in which the Government have failed to live up to their promises on crime, antisocial behaviour and welfare reform. When the Home Secretary stood up, I expected an equally analytical response, but far from that, it was a full 15 minutes before he even got to talking about the Queen's Speech. He gave us what is coming to be the all-too-predictable Labour response, which is to say, "But it was all worse in the '80s." Never mind that the Government have not met their promises, or that there are serious social issues challenging this country. All the Government are interested in is wiping out the past 12 years and harking back to what many voters will see, frankly, as ancient history. This Government will be judged on their record and their plans for the future and, on any analysis, they will be found wanting.

Stewart Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend think it a bit rich to be lectured by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) about raising the legitimate concerns of pensioners and disabled people? She represents a party that in 1997 launched its election campaign with a big lie: that Conservatives would abolish the state pension. It was a lie then and it is a lie now.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the tactics the Labour party used in that election, and I will come to the points that were made about disability benefits by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Glasgow, East (John Mason).
	The Labour party approach of harking back to the past was also followed by the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), although the latter also spoke about the campaign- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have this sort of behaviour from those on the Front Bench.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the approach of harking back to the past was followed by the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Jarrow, but the latter also referred to his long-standing campaign on pleural plaques.
	There were a number of thoughtful contributions to the debate on the subject of violence against women and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) made a very thoughtful speech. He rightly commended the white ribbon campaign and highlighted the importance of involving men in the work to end violence against women. He reminded us that violence against women takes many forms, a theme that was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), whom I commend on his valuable work as chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking, which is-as he said in his speech-the new slavery. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) also reminded us of the impact of violence in various forms against women in certain communities, including the Asian community, and the importance of working with local communities to combat that violence.
	On the issue of crime, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) reminded us of the need to get more police on the streets. As he pointed out, Labour promised, in its 1997 manifesto, that police would be on the beat, but the average police constable today spends only 14 per cent. of their time on the beat and 21 per cent. of their time on paperwork-another Government failure.
	Several hon. Members spoke about issues of particular interest to them: the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) spoke about alcohol sales and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) addressed drugs and their impact on people's lives. She referred to the failure of this Government in that area, and I have a very good drug rehabilitation centre in my constituency, Yeldall Manor, which is a long-term residential centre. It has an excellent record of getting people off drugs and turning their lives around, but because of the way in which the Government fund drug support, it is unable to fill all its beds. That is sad, because it could make a valuable contribution to people's lives.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) spoke thoughtfully about prison reform. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East raised the important issue of the Government's proposals to pay for their national care service by scrapping disability benefits for pensioners. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak dismissed that claim as unwarranted, and the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform has said that it was untrue. I can only assume that they, and any other Labour Member who says that it is untrue, have not read the Government's Green Paper on social care, because every option, apart from the option of people paying for social care themselves, is underpinned by some use of disability benefits. Furthermore, the Under-Secretary for Work and Pensions in the other place, Lord McKenzie of Luton has said:
	"My Lords, the Green Paper,  Shaping the Future of Care Together, proposed that one way to deal with the challenge of an ageing society may be to bring some disability benefits and the new care and support system together into a single system as a better way of providing support. At this stage, we do not want to rule out any options and so are considering all disability benefits."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 112.]
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, East raised the important point that disability benefits, such as attendance allowance and disability living allowance for the over-65s, give those who receive them the option of deciding how to use that money for the care that they want and that suits their needs. The Government are proposing to take that individual decision making away from pensioners and to say to them, "We won't let you decide what care you should have; we will tell you what care you will have, and it's going to be what the Government decide you should have." That would be a retrograde step.
	There were also some lighter moments in the debate. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), as well as appearing to do a complete U-turn on the Liberal Democrats' policy on the DNA database, expounded the wonderful new policy of a regional points-based system for work permits. He said that that would work in the UK because it works in Australia. He needs to go and take some geography lessons if he thinks that that is a valid point.
	We also had a characteristically forceful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who managed to cover crime, antisocial behaviour, prisons, immigration, political correctness and the Human Rights Act. I am not sure whether it was going from the sublime to the ridiculous or the other way round when he was followed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who proceeded to speak about wheel-clamping. I can tell her that I know about the problems of wheel-clamping from cases in my constituency.
	At the core of this debate lies the Government's failure to deliver on their promises over 12 years and their inability to develop the thinking needed to take the country forward. Nowhere is that more clear perhaps than in their failure to have a plan to tackle the debt crisis and a radical strategy to tackle the jobs crisis.
	Let us consider the Government's record on welfare reform. Having promised to be the party of welfare reform in 1997 and having asked the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to "think the unthinkable", they abandoned real welfare reform for more than a decade. Even when David Freud-now sitting on our Benches in the other place, as the noble Lord Freud-produced his report on welfare reform, the Government pushed it to one side and did nothing, and only produced their limited proposals for reform after my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell published our green paper with radical ideas for welfare reform. Once again, therefore, the Government followed our lead, but once again failed to take the necessary steps to make the radical changes needed.
	Let us remind the House of the figures: unemployment is at nearly 2.5 million, and while the recession has had an impact, we must never forget that the country entered the recession with nearly 5 million on out-of-work benefits. Youth unemployment is at a record level; one in five young people is out of work; the cost of incapacity benefit is now higher than in 1997, when Labour came to power; in some communities in this country, more than half of working-age adults are out of work and dependent on benefits; and worklessness has cost about £350 billion in benefits over the past 12 years. That is the cost of the Government's failure to reform welfare.
	One of the saddest and most damning indictments of the Labour Government is their failure to do anything about the large number of long-term unemployed people on incapacity benefit. Of course, some on IB are unable to work, and they should be supported, but many who claim it can, and want to, work. They need the individualised support that will help them to overcome barriers to work and get them into jobs. Our work programme-

Helen Goodman: That is what they get.

Theresa May: I hear the Minister's remark from a sedentary position. However, under the Government's flexible new deal, over-50s on IB and assessed as able to work will get one work-focused interview, and under-50s on IB will get three work-focused interviews. That is not the individualised support that those people need to overcome barriers and enter the workplace.
	Under our work programme, and our "get Britain working" policy, we will ensure that people on IB who are judged fit and able to work will be referred straight away to the specialist help of welfare-to-work providers, who will deliver a programme of support that meets their needs and gets them into work. That sort of vision will make a real change to people's lives. Are the Government giving that help? No. Only a Conservative Government would provide the support needed to help people on IB into work.
	Let us briefly consider youth unemployment. In a speech last week, the Prime Minister announced a range of measures, such as offering internships and other opportunities to graduates who have been unemployed for six months, but we think that all young people should be given specialised help to get them into work after six months. Once again, we see the paucity of the Government's ambitions. Whether it is rising levels of gun crime, increased numbers of persistent young offenders or rising IB claims, the Government have failed to meet their promises and abandoned too many of our fellow citizens. They have run out of ideas, have no answers to the challenges facing the country and have nothing left to offer. It is time for a fresh start and approach, and for the change that this country needs-change that can come only with a Conservative Government.

Yvette Cooper: We have had a serious, thoughtful and wide-ranging debate today on the Queen's Speech, covering subjects ranging from wheel clamps to prison reform, and from housing benefit to pleural plaques.
	Let me start by welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain), who made his maiden speech in the Chamber today. We congratulate him both on his election to the House and on the great pride with which he spoke about his constituency, the community that he grew up in, his ambitions for his community and his plans to keep campaigning on jobs for young people and improving his community and his area. I look forward to working with him on those issues.
	It is also worth noting the warmth with which many hon. Members in today's debate welcomed my hon. Friend and congratulated him on his speech. The first person to welcome him was the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who paid a warm tribute to our new Member and also raised the important issue of human trafficking. I congratulate him on the work that he has done over many years on the issue. He talked about the UK Human Trafficking Centre. As I understand it, the Home Office has no plans to close the centre or merge it with any other organisation, but I will raise his points with the Home Secretary, so that he knows what they are too.

Anthony Steen: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement. The 53 staff up in Sheffield are greatly concerned that they will be merged with either the UK Border Agency or the Serious Organised Crime Agency here in London. Both would be a mistake, so I am very glad that she will raise the matter with the Home Secretary.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. The advice that I have received from the Home Office is that that is not the plan, but he will be able to take the matter further.
	I also welcome the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), who referred to the issue of human trafficking as well as making important points about domestic violence and other issues raised by the Queen's Speech.
	Several hon. Members raised issues to do with alcohol, including my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of supporting more family-friendly working. It is important that we make work more family friendly, rather than simply helping family members go into work. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) talked about the importance of support for the economy.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) talked about social care and disability benefits. It is important to be clear about that, because there has been a lot of scaremongering on the issue, which is not responsible. We want to expand social care and support for those who are vulnerable, but it is important to understand that the Personal Care at Home Bill, which forms part of the Queen's Speech, will have no impact at all on any disability benefits and will be paid for by changes throughout the Department of Health. In addition, we have said that those who are on disability benefits will not lose out as we look for longer-term changes and that we support expanding individual budgets, which are extremely important. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to give people control over the kind of care that they need in future.

Steve Webb: Going further than that, I understand that the Health Secretary has ruled out taking away disability living allowance for future cases, but the same guarantee has not been made for attendance allowance. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether that is deliberate? In other words, is attendance allowance safe for future new claimants?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that we do not think that working age disability living allowance should be connected with the care system, which is about looking at older people's needs. We want to look at what the future links should be and how we expand care beyond the care and support currently provided by the benefits system and local councils, but in a way that increases the support available and protects people who receive it under the current system. That is the right thing to do, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the position has been set out in detail for debate and consultation as part of the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) raised the slightly curious spectre of border controls at Watford Gap or halfway along the M62, between Lancashire and Yorkshire, which might have slightly more support from some quarters. He seemed to be suggesting a regional points-based system and border controls.

Christopher Huhne: rose-

Yvette Cooper: I will allow the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to clarify.

Christopher Huhne: The Secretary of State is far too intelligent to have misunderstood my remarks. I specifically said that my proposal would apply to workplace checks on employers. There is no question of border controls.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recommitment to freedom of movement within the United Kingdom, because at a certain point in his remarks earlier he seemed to be committing himself to adding regional points for different regional skills shortages to the draft immigration Bill.
	The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) made a thoughtful speech on prison reform, while my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) both raised issues around wheel-clamping, which I know we will have an opportunity to debate further.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) pointed out many of the disingenuous ways in which Opposition Members have used statistics to support their image of a broken Britain, which their policies would, in fact, break further.
	The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) shouted at us all with great enthusiasm. He said that he did not believe the British crime survey and he refused to accept it. He said that he preferred hospital statistics instead. If he wants to refer to hospital statistics, I should point out to him that they, too, show a 6 per cent. decrease between 2007 and 2008 in admissions for assault with a sharp object. I hope that he will accept that that shows crime is falling, even if he does not want to accept the British crime survey.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) gave us his account of the broken Britain that he sees all around him. What we did not see from him, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, was any more information on his new plans for official forms. In  The Sunday Times he said:
	"Marriage has almost disappeared from official documents. I think that should change."
	We would have liked to hear more from him on that, because it would be interesting to know whether, under a Conservative Government, people will not be able to get a driving licence unless they have told the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency whether they are married; or whether they will not be able to submit a planning application to extend their house, until they have told the council whether they have walked down the aisle; or whether people will not be able to get a library card until they have told the librarian whether their husband has gone off with someone else.  [Interruption.] Conservative Members are saying, "How silly, how ridiculous," and I agree, but it was their honourable Front-Bench spokesperson who proposed this and it was their honourable Front-Bench spokesperson who, coming from a party that pretends to care and to complain about big government, put forward instead proposals that sound rather more like Big Brother.
	Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a serious point here. If he is suggesting that children applying to schools should now have to put on their application forms information about whether or not their parents are married, I do not think that it is a good idea-and I do not think it is a good idea for the children, either. I am married, and I think it is great for people to be married, as strong relationships are important for children, but strong families come in all shapes and sizes. Unlike the Conservative party, I do not believe that a child should be told that his family is second-class because it does not have a married couple at the heart of it. In the end, that is at the core of the hon. Gentleman's statements about marriage and the Conservative party's proposals to put forward tax breaks for marriage and support for marriage in the benefit system at the expense of widows or at the expense of mums left literally holding the baby when their ex-husband walks off. I believe that it is children whom we should support. That is what our proposals in the Queen's Speech and the Child Poverty Bill are all about.
	The Queen's Speech supports children, as the Child Poverty Bill sets in place the historic ambition to cut child poverty and end it by 2020. We have already lifted 500,000 out of relative poverty, with a further 500,000 due to be lifted out of it by the measures we have brought in this year and last year.
	Helping people back to work is another important element. Families across Britain are being hit by the recession. The world financial crisis has caused the biggest shock to our economy for very many generations, but despite the recession and despite the big increase in the number of full-time students, the proportion of working-age households where no one works has, in fact, fallen since 1997. The proportion of households of working age with no one in work is, I repeat, still lower than it was in 1997 as a result of what the Conservatives had done before that year. That contrasts with what we have done to help people back into work, to help lone parents back into work even while unemployment is rising and to help people on long-term sickness benefits get the support and treatment they need.
	We want to do more to help young people because we know that they are most heavily affected during a recession. That is why, last week, the Prime Minister set out additional support to help young people from the moment they enter the jobcentre, and from the moment they become unemployed.
	The action that we have taken has already made a significant difference. Unemployment is currently about 400,000 lower than independent forecasters expected at the time of the Budget, saving us billions of pounds. That is partly the result of our extra support for the economy, and partly the result of the £5 billion extra help for the unemployed-£2.1 billion this year, and £2.9 billion next year-to get them back into work. That is £5 billion that Conservative Members have repeatedly refused to support.
	I will give the Opposition another opportunity tonight to say whether they will support that additional investment in jobcentres, and in getting young people back into work. Time and again, we have asked them to support that £5 billion, and time and again they have refused. I first asked the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in April last year, and she refused to support the extra investment to help people into work. I asked her again in May, June, July and September. I even tried asking the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in October, and he also refused to support it.
	Time and again, the Conservatives have refused to back the extra £5 billion that we need to help people to get back into work. That is discretionary spending-not automatic stabilisers, and not funded by cuts in departmental spending elsewhere. It is part of the temporary discretionary spending that the Conservative party has opposed. It is borrowing to support the economy, and it is bringing unemployment down. Unemployment is now 400,000 lower than forecast at the time of the Budget last year. As a result of our investment, unemployment is lower than expected, and lower than in previous recessions, but the Conservative party opposes it.
	The former Monetary Policy Committee member, Professor Danny Blanchflower, has said that if we followed the Conservative party's policies and cut investment in the middle of recession, we would potentially have unemployment of 4 million or 5 million now. That would be devastating for families and individuals across the country. The £5 billion investment is putting more staff into jobcentres to help people who are losing their jobs. In the 1980s, the Conservatives refused to put extra staff into jobcentres, and as a result made it voluntary to sign on and even to go into jobcentres to look for work. Little wonder that unemployment, and long-term unemployment, soared.
	Once again the Conservatives refuse to support the extra investment that is turning things around and helping young people who would not otherwise have got into jobs. Most shockingly of all, the Conservatives want to abolish the future jobs fund. They do not want to help people across the country-100,000 young people, and 50,000 of the long-term unemployed-back into work. We know why: they oppose big government. That was the statement from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) earlier this month:
	"Human kindness, generosity and imagination are steadily being squeezed out by the work of the state."
	That is an astonishing statement. Is that what those on the Opposition Front Bench really think? Do they really think that help for mums in Sure Start is killing kindness? Do they think that faster treatment through the NHS is undermining generosity? Do they think that free entry to museums is somehow crippling kids' imagination?  [Interruption.] That is what he said-that human kindness, generosity and imagination are steadily being squeezed out by the work of the state.
	The Conservatives want the state to withdraw, to force people to sink or swim, and to leave charities to pick up the pieces. The last time the Conservative party tried that was in the 1980s.

Patrick McLoughlin: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	 Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 235, Noes 335.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Ordered, That the debate be resumed tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Business of the house

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 1 December, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sarah McCarthy-Fry relating to European Financial Services Proposals not later than three hours after their commencement; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. -(Steve McCabe.)

Sittings of the house

Motion made,
	That-
	(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
	In paragraph (4) the word 'eight' shall be substituted for the word 'thirteen' in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 44;
	(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
	In paragraph (2) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 21; and
	(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May. -(Steve McCabe.)

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS

Future of Small Shops

Andrew Selous: I take pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of the Federation of Small Businesses in my constituency, which was brought to me by members of the "Don't Let Dunstable Die" group.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of members of the Federation of Small Businesses and others,
	Declares that the House of Commons All-Party Small Shops Group estimates that there will be no independent retailers by 2015; declares that this equates to the loss of 50,000 small businesses; declares that the petitioners believe that small shops are struggling to survive because of local, regional and national government policies, together with the failure of the competition authorities to deal with the aggressive policies of the supermarkets.
	Further declares that the loss of the UK's Independent retailers has far-reaching socio-economic and environmental implications for the whole community; further declares that superstores and small independent shops should not be considered as two separate markets.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to secure the future of small shops across the UK and to safeguard the choice and competition that people expect on the market place; to create an independent regulator to ensure that local retail planning decisions do not have a negative effect on the interests of the local community; and to prohibit unfair pricing advantages such as below cost selling.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000424]

Equitable Life (Portsmouth South)

Mike Hancock: I present this petition to the House on behalf of a number of my constituents-all affected in one way or another by the Equitable Life assurance society fiasco-headed by Mr. Colin Rivington. They remain loyal subjects of the Queen and petition this Parliament to take action on their behalf.
	The petitions states:
	"The Petition of the residents of the constituency of Portsmouth South,
	Declares that the Petitioners either are or they represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society who have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in her report upon Equitable Life, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2008 and bearing reference number HC 815; and further declares that the Petitioners or those whom they represent or support have suffered regulatory failure on the part of the public bodies responsible from the year 1992 onwards, but have not received compensation for the resulting losses and outrage.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying in full with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000425]

Adoption and Custody (Suffolk)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Steve McCabe.)

Tim Yeo: I welcome this chance to raise on the Adjournment of the House my deep concerns about the adoption of very young children. In particular, I wish to expose the policy of Suffolk county council in cases where the birth parents do not wish to give up newly born babies for adoption. The council actively seeks opportunities to remove babies from their mothers. Its social work staff do so in a manner that in my view is sometimes tantamount to child kidnapping.
	I also wish to raise related concerns about custody decisions in cases where the parents are separated, and about the role of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Individual CAFCASS officers exercise substantial influence over the outcome of court hearings. They are often extremely unhelpful, both to birth parents who wish to be able to bring up their own children and to fathers who wish to retain access to children following the breakdown of a relationship.
	I have suspected for some time that an explicit if unpublished aim of the staff of Suffolk county council is to remove very young children from the care of their parents wherever possible. My anxiety results from a growing number of families in my constituency who come to me for help when Suffolk county council staff threaten to take away their children. I shall illustrate my concern by describing just one family, whom I have got to know well in the past 18 months. I wish I could believe that their case was exceptional but, alas, I fear that it may be typical of the practices followed by social workers throughout Suffolk, and possibly elsewhere in the country.
	For legal reasons, I cannot use the family's real names. I first met Carissa when she came to my constituency surgery in July 2008, with her partner Jim. At the time, Carissa was seven months' pregnant. I formed the view, which has been confirmed on every subsequent occasion, that although Carissa had a difficult and unhappy upbringing herself, she is potentially a loving and responsible mother, and that Jim would be a supportive and caring father.
	Carissa and Jim were concerned about the threats of Suffolk county council staff to take away their unborn baby soon after its birth. I therefore wrote to the then director for children and young people to ask why her staff had threatened this action, only to be informed that the county council was bound by confidentiality rules that prevented it from disclosing anything about the case. That was despite the fact that both parents had authorised the council, in writing, to disclose all information to me, however damaging it might be to them.
	Their daughter Poppy was born early in September last year. Suffolk county council social services monitored Poppy's progress minutely during the first few weeks of her life. Happily, she prospered at home under the loving care of Carissa and Jim. However, the fact that no fault could be found in the physical and emotional care provided by her natural parents did not deter the council from destroying this fragile family.
	On 27 October, the county council staff, having first ensured that Jim would be away from home, arrived unannounced and without warning at Carissa's home, accompanied by police. They snatched Poppy, then only a few weeks old, from the arms of her distraught mother. I immediately protested to the council about that unjust and cruel act. I received a letter in reply containing the chilling, and completely ungrammatical phrase
	"I can confirm that the infant was removed without notice with the assistance of the police however no force was used."
	In the eyes of the council, that apparently made everything all right.
	The appalling truth is that, in Suffolk in 2008, social workers and police could burst unannounced into a home to snatch a nine-week-old baby from the arms of her mother-a mother who is not only totally innocent of any offence but who is not even suspected of having harmed her child. Such is the extraordinary power of the social workers that all of that happens in a way that cannot be challenged. When the innocent victim asks her Member of Parliament for help, his inquiries are met with a wall of silence. This wall of silence is said to be in order to protect the privacy of the child. The truth is that it serves to conceal the actions of social workers from public gaze.
	It is very probable that if social workers had to operate with the same level of transparency and public scrutiny as every other profession takes for granted, some of the terrible cases where a failure to intervene, as opposed to the problem of unnecessary and unjust intervention in the case that I am describing, would not take place.
	To make matters very much worse, the circumstances of the raid were seriously misrepresented when council staff gave evidence in August this year to the adoption panel considering Poppy's future. Following the removal of Poppy from the care of her parents, a bitter legal battle took place, which continues to this day. Throughout this process Suffolk county council has repeatedly changed the grounds for removing Poppy, alternating between blaming one parent and then the other.
	The council's search for a justification for its cruelty became increasingly frantic as one initial diagnosis was overturned and replaced with another. Numerous contradictions arose which cast serious doubt on the soundness of the case against the couple. The first doctor's psychological assessment of Carissa declared that she qualified for a diagnosis of factitious disorder. Then a consultant forensic psychiatrist decided after the briefest of assessments that she fulfilled the criteria for the much more catch-all narcissistic personality disorder. The first doctor assessed that Jim was "a pathological liar". Later, a consultant clinical psychologist
	"would not endorse the expression".
	Expert witnesses also expressed misgivings. At a professional meeting on 18 March the doctors wanted to go on record
	"as being very concerned about the fragmented process of this case".
	Only Dr. B had seen both parents. Dr. D had only interviewed Jim and Dr. S only Carissa. Dr. B remarked that the fragmented information was a
	"disadvantage to the professional assessment as each had only part of the picture".
	Astonishingly, however, at no point has the ability of Carissa and Jim to care for Poppy been questioned. It is acknowledged that in the few weeks in which they were allowed to look after her, they did so in an exemplary manner.
	The final favoured rationale given by social services for Poppy's adoption order was based on nothing more than the possibility of future emotional abuse of her by either Carissa or Jim. The council staff claimed that only if Carissa received two years of therapy, and if Jim received at least six months', could they become responsible parents. Accepting that advice, and using wording that betrayed his own prejudices, a judge concluded that that would be too long a period to wait and that Poppy should therefore be taken away from her loving parents.
	The consistent thread running through this horrifying story has been the evident determination of social services staff to prevent an infant from being brought up in the care of her natural parents. There have been many other contradictions and inconsistencies in the case-far too many to list in this debate. Throughout the process Carissa and Jim have co-operated fully with social services, which is a reflection of how desperate they have been to retain their role as Poppy's parents. They were often caught in Catch-22 situations. Initially, Carissa was told she would have more chance of keeping Poppy if she separated from Jim. When she reluctantly complied with this suggestion temporarily in order to keep Poppy, however, the alleged instability of their relationship was cited as an additional reason for adoption.
	In August this year, when the Suffolk county council adoption panel held its hearing about the case, Jim and Carissa asked me to attend as their McKenzie friend, the first time I have undertaken this role. A kangaroo court would be a better title for the so-called panel. I inquired about its members and was told that they were
	"people with an interest in adoption-either adoptive parents themselves or people who had been adopted".
	Put another way, that meant that the panel consisted of people who were emotionally in favour of adoption, regardless of the merits of any individual case. I later learned that the panel almost always recommends that babies are adopted and practically never returns them to their birth parents.
	The procedure followed by the panel involves its members meeting first in private to consider the evidence. Neither Carissa nor Jim was permitted to know what information was being considered by the panel at this stage. This was particularly alarming because extensive and detailed notes were regularly written up after various meetings with council staff, CAFCASS employees and so on. Neither Carissa nor Jim ever had an opportunity to see these notes, to check their veracity or to comment on the judgments that they contained.
	This process would not, of course, be permitted if Carissa and Jim were facing criminal charges. The panel process equates to trying someone for an offence without giving them the chance to know on what the case against them is based. It is such a flagrant breach of natural justice that it would not be tolerated in any other legal process and should not be tolerated in adoption cases.
	Neither Carissa nor Jim stands accused of any offence whatever. The punishment that they face, however, is one of the most terrible any parent can face-the forced removal of their baby. The awful truth is that they would have more legal rights and would be treated more humanely and justly if they were on trial for murdering their child.
	It all meant that when Carissa and Jim eventually met the panel, they had no idea what points they should try to make because they did not know what they were accused of. Equally seriously, the accuracy of the allegations put before the panel by council staff is extremely questionable. One allegation, based on evidence from a council staff worker, was that Jim had been present when Poppy was snatched from her mother's home. It was said that a man's voice making threatening comments was heard from another room in the flat where Carissa was living with Poppy. That was not just a fabrication but must have been known by council staff to be a fabrication when it was included among the items for consideration by the panel.
	I am not qualified to assess the suitability of my constituents to parent their own child, but I am very concerned about the case. In bringing it, Suffolk county council has followed a procedure that should be outlawed in any civilised country. It is a process that denies parents the most basic human and legal rights.
	I am also concerned about the apparent contortions that county council social services and their appointed medical practitioners have gone through to justify their intervention and to find grounds for adoption. It is clear that far more accountability and scrutiny are required for social workers, CAFCASS officials, expert witnesses and judges. That is particularly the case when many of the same people are frequently involved. For example, the judge who oversaw a previous private law proceeding relating to Carissa's former husband also dealt with the case of Poppy. The CAFCASS practitioner who is Poppy's guardian was also involved in a custody dispute about Carissa's first child.
	Before concluding, I wish to mention briefly another constituency case involving this same CAFCASS worker. I consider the actions of that worker to be so damaging to the families she is appointed to help that, as soon as I am legally permitted to do so, I shall name her publicly. In the meantime, I strongly advise CAFCASS that she should be suspended.
	In that other case, a previously stable relationship between Richard and his partner, who together had a young daughter, broke down in distressing circumstances when his partner's older daughter physically attacked Richard. Unable to return to the family home, for which he had paid, and unwilling to bring charges against his stepdaughter, Richard moved out.
	At first, despite regular threats of violence against Richard and his family from the family of his former partner, threats that were so serious that significant protection measures had to be taken, Richard continued to enjoy almost daily access to his daughter-that is, until this CAFCASS worker arrived on the scene. In flagrant contradiction of the merits of the case and very much against the interests of the young girl concerned, the CAFCASS officer persuaded a court to cut Richard's access to his only daughter to a supervised session of no more than three hours a week. In the process, Richard's personal safety was seriously compromised. The result has been the destruction of the previously close and loving relationship between Richard and his daughter. Great distress has been caused to the whole of his family and Richard's health and well-being have been gravely damaged.
	To sum up, I believe that the current procedure for resolving adoption cases when the natural parents wish to retain care and custody of their children is unfair, unjust and should not be tolerated. The secrecy surrounding the process, together with the appalling lack of scrutiny and accountability in the social care and family court system, is made worse by the fact that Members of Parliament are prevented from having proper information in relation to "child protection" cases.
	Like other hon. Members, I am daily supporting constituents who have been let down by some branch of the state. Uniquely in the area of child protection, I am expected to trust that public officials are doing everything absolutely correctly. I am not allowed to make an informed judgment about that myself.
	Sadly, we know from the terrible baby P case that sometimes social workers make grievous errors. How, therefore, can we believe that every time a child is forcibly removed from a loving home and from his or her natural parents, the judgment of the social workers is so perfect and faultless that it should not be open to any outside scrutiny?
	In the case of Poppy it was only in September, after a court had ruled that she should be permanently and forcibly adopted, that I was finally allowed access to the detailed case notes. Poppy's parents themselves are still struggling to see the data held on them despite wanting to mount a private appeal. Once again, the rights of people accused of crimes, however serious, are far greater than those of parents of children whom social workers want to seize for adoption. In criminal cases, defendants have a right to receive copies of case conference notes and all the evidence that is used against them in court.
	There are, of course, many cases in which removing a child from the care of its parents is necessary and right, and tragically decisions about whether to return an abused child to abusive parents may literally be a matter of life or death. The category, however, of emotional abuse is more complex, but in any circumstances it is surely true that, if the professionals involved were made more accountable, decisions about permanent removal would be a little easier to justify. The problem of accountability is complex, but as award-winning journalist Camilla Cavendish, who has studied the subject, points out:
	"The privacy of the child has become synonymous with the privacy of the professionals."
	The other lesson from the case of Poppy is that the emphasis must shift from removing young children from parents, who may themselves be vulnerable and somewhat inadequate, to providing support for those same parents. If a fraction of the effort, cost and time that Suffolk county council staff spent on trying to justify the removal of Poppy from her parents had, instead, been devoted to helping Carissa and Jim, it would have strengthened a family instead of destroying it. Social workers should provide more supportive parenting help early on. The judge suggested that Jim would require six months to a year of therapy in September 2009, and that did not fit into Poppy's time scales, but the family were known to social services before her birth, giving them as much as 18 months to work with the couple had they so desired.
	Tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on the court process for the case-money that could have been used to help the family and others in their position. I urge the Minister to institute an immediate inquiry into how the adoption process works in the cases of very young babies who have been born to parents who wish to keep them. Some 16 years ago, I was a Minister at the Department of Health, where I had responsibility for adoption and social services policy. I believe that the subject is critical to many families and transcends normal party political boundaries. We should let the case of Poppy be the catalyst that leads to a change in such unfair procedures.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on securing this important debate. Like the hon. Gentleman, the Government want the very best for every single child in this country, and that is why we take the safeguarding of children so seriously. I am of course aware of the circumstances to which he refers, and I understand how incredibly difficult and emotionally draining it can be for all concerned in such cases. However, as I am sure he will appreciate, I am unable to comment on, or intervene in, such individual cases.
	Before I deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's points, I shall make it clear that the Government's policy is that children should live with their parents whenever possible. We have invested huge amounts in early intervention, through Sure Start children's centres and our Think Family initiatives, and in more intensive support, through family intervention projects, family nurse partnerships and multi-systemic therapy programmes, to support the most vulnerable families with children on the edge of care. The challenge for social workers, and for all of us, is to keep children safe and families together when that is possible, but sadly sometimes it is not.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the child's welfare is of paramount importance in all decisions made by local authorities, or by the court, about the care and upbringing of children. Sometimes children have to be taken into care because they cannot live at home in safety, and the Government make no apology for that. Local authorities have powers to apply to the courts for emergency protection orders, and the police have powers to remove children so that they can act immediately to protect the child, but local authorities cannot remove children from their parents' care without the parents' consent without first referring the matter to a court. The court may make such an order only if it is satisfied on the evidence provided that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and that that is due to the care given to the child by the parents. It is, for the child, better if the order is made than if it is not.
	The decision that a child should be adopted is made not by one social worker, but by a group of people who scrutinise the adoption plan-in particular, an adoption panel. In considering the plan, the adoption panel and the local authority must, like the courts that make the final decisions, have regard to the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and they must consider whether adoption or another permanent option would be better for the child. If the parents do not agree to their child being placed for adoption, the local authority must apply to the court for a placement order. It is then a matter for the court to decide whether to make a placement order and, later, an adoption order. No child is adopted from care without a court deciding that it is in their best interests; this is a fundamental safeguard in the care system. Provisions in the Children, Schools and Families Bill will continue the process of opening up family courts by broadening the amount of information that can be reported by the media, which will be allowed to attend proceedings in staged processes. That is subject to a review following the introduction of the first stage.
	Let me turn now to information and support for parents. Parents must have access to court reports and permanence reports, as well as the right to counselling and fully understanding the reasons for decisions being made. They also have the right to an independent support worker as soon as adoption becomes the plan for the child. Adoption records are highly confidential, and it may not be appropriate for a local authority to share certain information with birth parents, particularly if this relates to third parties and if doing so could undermine the security of the adoptive placement or put the child's welfare at risk. However, the child's permanence report is to be read by the birth parents-it is a key document presented to the adoption panel about the adoption plan for a child. Parents should therefore be aware of information that the panel will take into account in making recommendations regarding the plan for adoption, and the panel will take into account any comments the parents have made on the child's permanence report.
	The local authority must provide a counselling service for parents, who, as I said, also have the right to an independent support worker, whose role is to provide the parents with advice and support. All local authorities should be working in partnership with birth parents, although it is a matter for each authority to decide on the appropriateness of sharing minutes of specific meetings. A new booklet for parents entitled "Your child could be taken into care" has been produced by the Ministry of Justice, with the aim of strengthening and improving the information offered to parents before court proceedings begin; this will be issued in the new year. In addition, since May this year the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has been sending an information pack about court processes and the role of CAFCASS to all parents and children involved in proceedings.
	Government guidance consistently highlights the importance of continuing to work in partnership with parents with a view to the child returning home, even when statutory action is being taken. For example, we recently issued for consultation draft regulations and strengthened guidance, which set out our expectations regarding care planning to ensure that each looked-after child has a thorough assessment of their needs and circumstances. However, a stage may be reached when it is apparent that the child cannot return home. At that stage, the local authority must make alternative plans to provide the child with a permanent family home. Adoption is one way of providing this, and it is appropriate for some children, depending on the facts of each individual case. In such cases, however, the local authority must explain to the parents why the child cannot go home, and why it has been decided that adoption is the plan, as well as the legal implications of placing their child with prospective adopters and the effect of an adoption order.
	Before I close, I feel it is worth noting that Ofsted's last inspection of Suffolk described the authority's adoption service to children and families as both strong and child-focused, with birth families being involved in adoption plans and invited to attend the adoption panel to give their views. It stated that they can also access independent support and receive help with maintaining indirect and direct contact with their children, and that they are treated with respect.
	I reiterate that I am proud of this Government's record in delivering for families and safeguarding children. There are already extensive checks and balances in the system, including the independent judiciary, publicly funded solicitors for all parties and CAFCASS children's guardians, which combine to ensure that care and adoption orders are made only after proper scrutiny of local authorities' work and proposals.
	I understand from CAFCASS that it received a letter from the hon. Gentleman on 19 November regarding the actions of a CAFCASS officer and the court's decision on contact in a specific case. It has assured me that he will receive a reply within 10 working days of receipt of that letter.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.

Deferred Division

adjournment (christmas)

That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 16 December 2009, do adjourn till Tuesday 5 January 2010.
	 The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 198.

Question accordingly agreed to.